They'll come for you, too
Interesting to note that the bank in question didn't loan out its money but instead made its profits on transaction fees. Also to note, the bank's primarily conservative investors are out their $65 million. Can we say legalized THEFT?
Previous comments...
But they are. I think Google uses some internal algorithm of their own in their data centers, or so I've read. I forgot what it was called. Not sure if they still use it. It is compatible with everything else because of the way routing works. It doesn't matter what updates the routing table, so long as packets get routed semi-correctly.
Obviously, executions are not moral.
That is not in question. I think the criteria was that a decentralized system must be able to overpower a centralized one. How they did it doesn't matter. I guess centralized one also executed people, so, I guess they are on the same level in that case.
I think 'predation' is a better word for what is going on there.
When I observe 'punishment' in the current justice system, I see death penalty, imprisonment or fines. I don't consider these justified or permissible. These are supposed to cause 'pain' and 'damage' by design. These are things that you are not supposed to do to people.
The only justified version of 'justice' that I would allow is one where:
1. victim is paid back by perpetrator
2. perpetrator pays for costs of enforcement (of that particular case)
3. perpetrator goes through rehab (if they don't admit wrongdoing and repay voluntarily, otherwise they'll come back and cause more damage)
It takes a certain amount of resources to support one's life. Usually, you are able to acquire much more resources by producing than it takes to support your life. So, you get 'profit' that you can use to either enjoy your non-working hours or to invest into something, such as children. So, if someone is killed (against their will), the murderer owes victim's future 'profit' to the victim.
It might be a little difficult to determine the monetary value for rape, but the idea is the same. The victim has negative effects on their future production as a result of the rape (physical and psychological). The rapist must pay back what would be lost. It would probably be less than with murder.
Drug dealing is a mutually consensual activity, so, nothing is lost as a result of violating anybody's will. If the drug user experiences any damage, it is a consequence of their own decisions. Now, if the drug dealer forces someone to become addicted to their product using either violence or fraud, then that is a different question. In that case, the drug dealer would be liable for the damage that was caused to the victim.
In a lot of cases, the damage is not just to the single victim but to multiple parties. Killing a CEO might bankrupt their company, so, shareholders might also be victims in that case.
I don't know yet how to deal with probabilistic nature of damage calculations. Maybe an expected value calculation can be used for this. This is something to think about and improve on.
The amount of damage that can be done can be quite substantial. The perpetrator may not even have enough from their estate plus the 'profit' from the remainder of their life to be able to pay back the full amount. However, that does not free them from the repayment obligation in any way.
I would define a state as an organization that imposes its rule by force and/or trickery/fraud on population in some geographical location.
I would define anarchy as lack of rulers.
I think that the only "rulers" that should exist is logic and reason. So, ignoring your 'besides anarchy' requirement, I would replace state rule with logic and reason.
It did have a courthouse. Could your anarchy exist without laws and some entity to enforce them?
Does your definition of anarchy "as lack of rulers" imply no rules as well?
My position is that you should be able to hire companies to enforce laws. These companies would ensure that everything is done lawfully and in a professional manner. Courts/judges might provide additional check that everything was done correctly. Proofs would be available for anyone to check for themselves.
There should not be a forced monopoly of law enforcement.
It's one thing to advocate for limits on State power. It's quite another to come up with a working substitute for basic functions like law making, adjudication, and enforcement. Those are fundamental functions that really are part of "government." Making them private does what exactly? See the Federal Reserve...
"a monopoly on enforcement of such laws makes sense" - disagree
A monopoly cannot exist without it being maintained by violence or fraud. It is immoral, no matter how limited.
I have no problem with a vigilante. They would be a volunteer law enforcement. I can't see them doing that for long because it would be costly, but I guess if they want to waste their time and money, sure. The problem might be if they are not professionals and don't know what they are doing. If they do something wrong, they will get into trouble pretty quickly.
My view is that laws should be universal, based on logic, and provable. There is no problem with multiple court systems, assuming they are not making mistakes. If they are making mistakes, then too bad for them, they will get into trouble pretty quickly.
I think the issue is that you guys view laws as ephemeral and spontaneous. That is the problem right there. Obviously having multiple enforcers and legislators in your situation would create conflicts. However, in a system of mathematically derived laws this problem doesn't exist.
The Federal Reserve is coercive. They are in cahoots with the state to bypass the Constitution (flawed as it may be) to steal the wealth of the people. Also, if I am not wrong they are a monopoly.
To allow any form of monopoly on anything is a grave mistake.
Monopolies can also exist for expediency. Take basic utilities and roads, for example. There's no question that such are monopolies yet they are also the most efficient way to accomplish the delivery of those services. There's nothing inherently immoral about a monopoly. A monopoly maintained by coercion or fraud is certainly immoral, but to argue that all such is to similarly invalidate patents, trademarks, etc. which are in and of themselves monopolies.
The problem with vigilante-ism is that they aren't authorized law enforcement officers, and I'm not talking about government as the source of their authority. Sheriffs are elected by the People and can temporarily deputize citizens as needed. These aren't vigilantes, however. Huge difference. The KKK were vigilantes and we saw how that went...
"My view is that laws should be universal, based on logic, and provable."
You are talking about universal moral laws and I don't disagree one bit. But human beings are anything but logical and provable. And some laws are simply arbitrary - such as which side of the road to drive on! I'm a perfectionist and I recognize the impulse to have every single thing neat and tidy, but the reality is that all that flies out the window the second you have to apply it to people.
"I think the issue is that you guys view laws as ephemeral and spontaneous."
You would be in error. You conflate moral absolutes with the laws of men. It would be nice if all laws were based on universal moral absolutes, but the human element frustrates this. We're not a society of gods.
"Obviously having multiple enforcers and legislators in your situation would create conflicts. However, in a system of mathematically derived laws this problem doesn't exist."
It simply doesn't work to have multiple authorities over the same thing. They are competing jurisdictions and the only result is confusion. It is why the Founders separated the duties of the federal government from the duties of each State: each had a separate jurisdiction.
Illegal immigration is precisely a problem originating in authority and jurisdiction. Either the United States has jurisdiction over them and calls them citizens or some other nation has jurisdiction and they are invaders. But both can't maintain simultaneous jurisdiction. If you don't believe me, try explaining how it would work in your hypothesis.
"The Federal Reserve is coercive. They are in cahoots with the state to bypass the Constitution (flawed as it may be) to steal the wealth of the people. Also, if I am not wrong they are a monopoly."
We are in 100% agreement. And they should be audited, their fraud exposed, and shut down for good.
I thought about immigration for a while and I decided that you guys are in the wrong here.
I am not completely sure about borders yet, but I suspect that maybe they shouldn't exist.
The question of what is property is an interesting one but probably out of scope of this post. Let's assume that we have arrived at some universal provable definition of property for the purpose of this discussion.
You can't claim huge parts of Earth and then decree nobody else touch it. I suspect this is probably immoral. If the migrants follow the law (the universal one, not the one that you made up) then I think it is fine that they are left to their own devices.
I think immigrants are 'invading' because of the situation created by the states. On one hand they are being financially repressed / predated upon in their own countries. On the other hand, they are given a lot of unearned goodies in the US. No wonder they 'invade'. You guys should work on wealth redistribution / state predation in the US and abroad, I think that will solve your invasion problem.
I think that illegal migrants would likely break the law, which is why they would be dealt with by the private right protection organizations. The organization that would have jurisdiction would probably be the one getting paid by the victim of the crime. Regardless, these organizations would not have their own laws. They would enforce the universal one, proven by math and logic, probably by some academic long ago not even part of their organization. If they don't then they are likely going to have trouble with another right-protecting organization paid by the opposing party. I guess that's how it works now with states/nations, except for trouble happening all the time precisely for the reason of not having a common law across states/nations.
You see, my way is an improvement on the current situation. It seems you are arguing against having multiple jurisdictions but that is what is going on now with multiple states/nations. The one additional unfortunate thing is these states are actually coercive mafia organizations.
Imagine having no wars... what a crazy thought!
Regarding immigration, as soon as one recognizes that societies exist and that some societies may have different rules, you have automatically created borders denoting where a given society's jurisdiction lies. It's an inherent byproduct and not nearly so arbitrary as one may think.
"You can't claim huge parts of Earth and then decree nobody else touch it."
Why not? Ownership is a pre-eminent claim on usage of something. I derive its necessity in my book. But to the point, there is the claim, and then there is the enforcement of that claim. Two very different aspects of the topic; both entirely germane to the discussion...
Regarding illegal immigration, these people are coming because they are repressed in their own countries and being offered free stuff in ours. No disagreement there. The thing to realize is that they have no right to join our society without our agreement. That's why its illegal. They're trying to force their way into our society - most notably our pocketbooks! Once one realizes that these are aggressors/thieves intentionally flouting our laws (despite the ridiculous non-enforcement under the current regime) one starts realizing that these are precisely the kind of people we don't want in our nation at all. If they aren't willing to abide by the rules of naturalization and guest entry, what other rules will they be inclined to ignore at our expense? Studies have shown an awful lot, most notably drug and sex trafficking.
As to the notion of "private" enforcement, what aspect would make it any different than the existing Border Patrol? Seriously. Simply putting the word "private" before something isn't enough. The authority and funding would still have to originate from the People. And when The People get together and agree upon a compact to address a problem... That's government one way or the other.
I came to the conclusion that monopolies cannot exist without use of violence or fraud. Correct me if I am wrong. So, monopolies must not be allowed.
Border Patrol is a monopoly organization. Nobody else is allowed to perform their task. They receive a no-bid contract.
Therefore, having Border Patrol must not be allowed, at least not as it is now. Same with any other kind of law enforcement. There must be a possibility for competition, otherwise how would a market price be set for that service? You might be overpaying. I would like to see market forces work on 'government' organizations.
Regarding who pays and how is an interesting question. One thing I know for sure based on the universal law that I am thinking of: no coercion. The person paying must be voluntarily giving the money. I don't care how you make that work, but it MUST be voluntary.
Based on my view on borders (there should be none), Border Patrol would not exist. However, other law enforcement should exist. I would even go so far as to say that it would be very cheap because they might be allowed to recoup most of the expenses of enforcement from the criminals. The criminals would not be punished but forced to pay back the damages (justified forced labor if need be), likely including what was spent bringing them to justice. So, the people would only have to pay the "stand by" costs.
I'm not sure yet the details of how all that might work, but I am sure some system that would adhere to the universal law can be designed, given enough time and effort.
I hope that in our discussions you are beginning to see that MUCH preparation goes in to something before it can actually be considered true, polished thought. I commend your initial efforts and recommend you seriously consider the counter-arguments I am making instead of merely discounting them because they are inconvenient.
"The criminals would not be punished but forced to pay back the damages (justified forced labor if need be),"
Do you comprehend the inherent contradiction in this sentence? Do you not see that the majority of your provisions are similarly flawed by wanting to have your cake and eat it, too?
"I'm not sure yet the details of how all that might work, but I am sure some system that would adhere to the universal law can be designed, given enough time and effort."
Human history has tried nearly everything under the sun. I would advocate strongly for some serious reading in history and philosophy. Plato's Republic. Blackstone's Commentary on the Law. Cicero. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Hayek's Road to Serfdom. The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. John Locke. Montesquieu. Hobbes. The beginning of true wisdom starts with understanding how much you have left to learn.
No, please enlighten me.
Punishment maybe works for a slave. I don't believe punishment makes sense for a free person.
"The criminals would not be punished but forced to pay back the damages (justified forced labor if need be),"
How does one who doesn't believe in punishment "force" someone to pay back damages?
"I don't believe punishment makes sense for a free person."
Again, please define freedom.
What I mean by punishment is a 'retaliationary action'. This action has nothing to do with repayment. It is just the victim (or someone on behalf of the victim) causing damage to the perpetrator. This damage isn't necessarily equal to the amount of damage that was caused by the original damage-inducing action performed by the perpetrator.
So, a retaliationary action creates more damage overall. It is meant to create a deterrent for the future. It does not improve victim's objective situation.
A repayment, on the other hand, restores victim's original state (as best as possible) and does not cause any additional overall decrease in society's wealth.
I am arguing that we should not be retaliating. We instead should be making the perpetrator pay back the victim for the damage that was caused.
'How does one who doesn't believe in punishment "force" someone to pay back damages?'
The same way you retaliate (using violence) except you don't cause damage but direct the perpetrator to create/transfer value to the victim. For example, take stolen goods away from the thief and give it back to the victim, take some additional stuff away from the thief to pay for enforcement and thief's rehab classes. The transfer of value can take many forms. It might be transfer of currency/money or it might involve labor camps.
Freedom in this context means no slavery (prior to causing damage to the victim and refusing to pay back). I guess the perpetrator will not be free temporarily, but their enslavement is entirely due to their own actions.
Slavery is when one person (a master) uses violence/fraud to cause another person (a slave) to follow the master's orders. This is usually done to create/transfer value (time/effort) from the slave to the master.
Then use retaliation. Punishment implies a justified use of force.
I'll give you an easier version of slavery: looting. It's a transfer of wealth from one person to another without equitable payment. Fraud, bribery, theft, extortion... All forms of looting.
I have some level of awareness of ideas in some of the materials you listed. The problem is that as I judge a lot of these, some ideas appear closer to the truth, but some are completely off. My general judgement of humanity's philosophical understandings is not very positive. I'm very skeptical about a lot of what is accepted currently. A lot of it doesn't seem right based on my understanding of reality.
Thanks for the references. I need to check out the ones I don't know about.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. The trick is how to persuade others to buy into your vision. For that, you have to clearly elucidate the policies and practical application. There's pie-in-the-sky and there's pie on the table.
Nobody is forcing you to engage with them. If you don't like them, ignore them. If they break the (universal) law engaging with you, I would allow you to defend yourself and have them pay for it.
However, decreeing who can or cannot exist and reside in a particular space is wrong, IMHO. If the space is your property then you are allowed to do it, but if it isn't then you shouldn't have a problem. If they cause you property damage, that should be dealt with in a regular way.
I would agree with you that maybe most of them have a disregard for the (universal) law, but so does most of you guys, as far as I can tell. Maybe you guys are little better, but you still want me dead (by statism). This is my logical conclusion, nothing personal.
The reason why they are a financial burden for you is because of the state. If there was no state giving them things that they take from you by force, then there would be no problem like that.
This is the same leftist logic that they are using right now to flood our country with illegal aliens. Yet will they allow those same people free rein in their homes? Nope. You're welcome to hold that opinion, but it is the epoch of hypocrisy to try to claim universal law in the same sentence as an absence of property rights.
"The reason why they are a financial burden for you is because of the state."
This is only partially true. There is no question that a welfare state is a moral evil IMHO, but illegal aliens also bring with them a disregard for other social laws and culture. It is indisputable that the amount of crime overall has skyrocketed since Biden stopped enforcing the border. That includes Fentanyl, child sexual exploitation, rape, murder, etc. All of those are costs that are very real and which are very inconvenient to your argument.
I have the highest respect for property rights, but how I define property is slightly different and, IMHO, better (property is the result of labor, not first dibs on something).
"I have the highest respect for property rights..."
If you respect property rights, you MUST also respect borders. They are the same thing. To assert a respect for property rights in one sentence yet to claim national borders are immoral is a gross contradiction.
"property is the result of labor, not first dibs on something"
Does not one have to go to the effort of claiming something?
I can see that it is going to be very hard for me to change your mind, but I am going to try.
I don't think collectivists are necessarily against borders. China is pretty closed off, as is North Korea.
You can't simply claim huge parts of the universe as yours. According to my definition of property, you can only claim your labor (or labor that you exchanged with somebody else). These are claims that cannot be disputed and can always be proven. You are also naturally limited in how much stuff you are able to own. You don't want somebody to be claiming the whole universe. Everybody else will have nothing left over to own. This is how you get wars. You need a system in which all participating parties can agree to a universally acceptable set of rules. Preempting someone on the claim of the whole universe (or currently accessible universe - Earth) is not something that people will agree with.
Having said that, I would like to point out that you can have borders for stuff that affects your labor. I think that is fair. If you invested into a farm and you take care of it and grow food on that piece of land, you own it to the extent of your investment. If someone was to harm it, they would be liable for damages. Building a road would automatically grant you ownership of that land, provided that you didn't cause any damage to anybody else's land. There are some details left to work out with my idea, but I think it is workable.
I think claiming something isn't very labor-intensive. In fact, it is basically zero labor. Maybe you have to put a fence around it and maybe use it for something that would require preventing people from accessing it. Such as, it being your private residence or a business. Only then do I think your claim is valid.
You can have associations of people claiming collections of properties as part of an association. I guess you can possibly fence that stuff off if everyone inside agrees. However, what's going on with country borders is a little different.
I view country borders as something that a the state (the mafia organization) conjures. People have no say in what their borders are. States organize wars. At the end of the war they renegotiate borders. Populations in redrawn lands want to be in the other country after the war but they have no say. Populations can't switch sides. States tax populations residing within their borders. When they want more tax revenue, they organize wars. States force male populations on their territories into fighting their wars for them. People are brainwashed into thinking that their country is theirs and their government is their parent. However, in reality, their government is their master and the people are its slaves. People's borders are the borders of their masters which they have forcefully taken away from somebody else. Americans took their land from the Indians. They didn't have to. They may have been able to work things out. I think both sides even proclaimed the right of conquest. What a brutal and uncivilized bunch.
Some people are part of the government, so, they will defend it because their livelihood depends on it. However, they are guilty of organized crime.
There are even some stateless people. Nobody wants them. Their current country wants them out. What are they supposed to do, die? You guys are cruel. I would like to be stateless myself, but then I would need to commit suicide. The situation which you statists have created is impossible.
People should "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Or, as I might reword it, people should not be judged by their birth country but by their adherence to the universal law.
It is not a good idea to prevent people from cooperating with you. If you decide to screw them over (by withholding access to some geographical area) then don't be surprised when they return the favor.
Now, if you guys decide to have a conflicting set of laws in both of your countries then I guess you do need borders to keep yourselves away from each other. You are going to need some occasional wars then. I guess you guys like killing each other.
A lot of problems are solved with my universal law idea. I hope for a future in which humanity is able to live peacefully without organized crime running everything, without wars and without Earth being fenced off everywhere.
The problem is with what it is that you are claiming you own exactly. The whole question of what is property is very hard to get one's head around.
I thought about it for a while and only saw one justifiable way to define property:
Property is what results from labor. (or something to that effect)
I don't like the whole idea of claim-based property. If that is true, I claim the entire universe and everything that has not been claimed yet. Now, you have to pay me for my sun's energy. Do you see the problem? It is very easy to engage in rent seeking behavior using claim-based property. Rent seeking is predation, so, I can't allow it.
The 'property from labor' definition goes along nicely with my idea of 'no punishment but repayment of damages'. If someone destroyed my property, they would have to replace it using the equivalent amount of 'labor' that cost me to get it. So, you have the claim on your labor. This makes you a free person, and not a slave. You don't need to claim the atoms in your phone to have a claim to it. The claim is to the labor that was put to arrange the atoms in that way. If someone was to steal the atoms of your phone, that would destroy the labor that was put into arranging them and rob you of its value to you.
Just asserting something is yours is baseless. However, if you can show that you spent your time and effort to get it then you have a claim to it. This wouldn't include stealing though, which I guess does require effort, but you are going to have to give it back because you rob someone else of their labor, so you would end up in the red.
It is possible I am wording this idea in an incorrect way, however, I really like the mathematical consistency that it suggests. It probably means I am getting close to the truth.
If you think about it, time is all we have. If we spend it acquiring things, then those things belong to us because they represent our time.
I would argue that 'exclusive right of use' is a property 'right', not property itself. What is property though?
I was trying to propose an improved definition of property that would be a bit more mathematical. Instead of having claims of physical matter or space, you would claim the labor that was put into something to make it into the form that the 'property' currently takes.
So, if one was to deprive someone of their property by violence or fraud, one would be on the hook to replace it by putting the needed amount of labor into producing it.
There are still issues with this definition, but I am working on resolving them.
My view is that there is only one truth, only one correct system of rules. If countries take some basic axiomatic ideas that are most certainly are true (even if they can't be proven true), such as the golden rule we talked about, chances are very high that both countries will end up with the same set of rules after doing the proper derivations (unless someone screwed up). So, if all countries have the same laws, borders are not necessary.
Law enforcement jurisdictions are a different question. I did propose previously that there should be multiple companies providing law enforcement services even in a single country. So, without country borders, you still have the same situation (multiple entities providing law enforcement services). I am not sure yet how that might look like, but I'm sure it would be better than what we have now.
Not that I disagree, but how do you know which system is the correct one?
"chances are very high that both countries will end up with the same set of rules"
You are overlooking the element of human ignorance, which can not be overstated. The only way people end up at the same set of rules is if they have those rules given to them by someone who knows them. Otherwise, their own experiences and personal biases will affect their conclusions.
"So, if all countries have the same laws, borders are not necessary."
You're ignoring regional differences which sometimes necessitate adaptation. Your view is overly simplistic.
"I did propose previously that there should be multiple companies providing law enforcement services even in a single country."
Yes, you proposed it, but it is inefficient and confusing. Every organization has to have a tier of overhead. Why create more overhead just to solve the same problem - especially when one of the biggest problems in governance is waste? And who is ultimately going to authorize these various companies all providing the same service? What is actually going to differentiate them?
"I am not sure yet how that might look like, but I'm sure it would be better than what we have now."
You might want to re-read that sentence.
What do you mean exactly by "differentiate?"
I would not allow anybody to get special privileges authorizing stuff. Either everybody can do it or nobody can.
The answer to that question would be: the universal law. Once a certain criteria is met, anybody should be allowed to enforce the law.
By that mentality, I can declare myself Sherriff - and so can everyone else! What you're proposing here is lunacy.
Of course, nobody is going to be doing it just for fun. There are a lot of risks. You are going to need insurance. The activity itself will be very expensive. You will need to spend a lot of time in court. Somebody will need to be paying for the service. Some of the money will likely come from whoever hires you to patrol their neighborhood, etc. You can get some of the funds possibly from perpetrators repaying you for you stopping their illegal activities, however, there are still going to be huge standby costs and cost associated with mistakes (probably covered by expensive insurance). If you kill someone on accident, there will be hell to pay. If you are bad at it, the free market will chew you out.
I seriously don't see the lunacy you are referring to. Everything appears logical.
Seriously? Anyone performing law enforcement duties? No training. No badge. No official capacity? That's chaos - not law and order.
"Somebody will need to be paying for the service."
And how's that exactly going to work? Seriously. What's your plan?
Flesh out your plans from soundbites into real proposals. Until you do that, you're just spitballing, throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.
How do you suppose free market solves that? (competition, alternatives that do it cheaper)
Of course, in reality people want defense services. They might not be 'national', but they will be 'defense'. I think the issue is that the state (as it is) creates unfair competition or outright outlaws them, so, those services don't really have a market in the current environment. But I assure you, the market will exist for it once the state fucks off.
Competition will make things cheaper due to the need to remove unnecessary waste, and there is a huge amount of waste in government, trust me. I suspect 50% of everybody's life is wasted on working to pay the state (in the US).
Emergency services are those that people never want to pay for until the service is critically needed. It's a classic economic problem. Firefighting, police, ambulance services - they all fall into this category. The problem is that if there isn't some funding and infrastructure in place up front, the services don't exist and aren't available at all!
"Competition will make things cheaper..."
Competition does not solve every problem. That's an illusion. There are some services which are more efficient when presented by a monopoly. Those include power, water, sewer, and national defense.
I thought "capitalism"/"free market" proponents were ok with competition.
Overhead is a necessary evil, but overhead comes at the expense of profit margins. Efficiency is as much about the process one uses as the management overhead. But multiplying that overhead across a number of "competitors" doesn't make capitalism...
It might turn out that they are able to provide the same service at half the price. That will be positive for society in the long run.
I would rather take rules from someone publishing proofs for their rule set than someone not doing that.
Universal rules would account for regional differences.
Take water use, for example. Would you use the same rules for water in the Amazon as you would the Sahara desert? Or if you want to use places in the United States, how about Denver and Portland? Regional adaptation is critical.
It's also kind of funny to note, but you assert here a centralized rule-making engine yet in many of your other posts you go on and on about de-centralization of authority...
The universal law can be derived in a decentralized way. That's the whole point of having it, so that everyone ends up with the same rule set. Just like everybody ends up with the same mathematics. I don't understand why you would think math is centralized.
You prove it with logic. Rules must not be arbitrary. They must be derived from ones that are universally accepted.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but I assume you think it is some sort of contradiction. It is not.
I don't know some details, but what I know at the current point of my development process already looks better than the current state of things.
You cannot simply force somebody to behave how you (or the majority of voters) want. This is immoral coercion. You have to prove by logic and reason that they must follow your law because otherwise some universal basic law that even they agree with is broken.
So, you are saying that because humans are not perfect, we must make laws on a whim. I don't follow that logic. If we are so fallible, what makes you so sure that our decided-on-a-whim laws are not wrong?
Don't be ridiculous. It is not so hard. I am one person (without a philosophy background, other than the odd college class) and I was able to work out a few things by myself, one being that you guys are all crazy... :) I even had that suspicion when I was a kid. All you have to do is open your mind to all the possibilities.
Any confusion will eventually work itself out. It is better than bowing down to the word of a single long-dead corrupt judge and having to deal with corrupt cops.
I suspect the founders were brainwashed by the crown, which is why they couldn't imagine a world without the state.
It's an interesting sentiment, but completely devoid of practicality. Stop thinking in sound bites and take time to completely study the options.
"You cannot simply force somebody to behave how you (or the majority of voters) want."
You confuse laws with law enforcement. You are absolutely right that no one can force you to do anything. All they can do is punish you for non-compliance. The real question is whether or not the law in question is just, i.e. founded upon a correct moral principle. If it is, rebellion against it is simply that - rebellion out of ignorance/arrogance.
"So, you are saying that because humans are not perfect, we must make laws on a whim."
Please re-read what I wrote. I said that we should found laws upon universal moral principles. Those aren't whims. But in some cases - such as determining which side of the road to drive on - the laws are arbitrary to a large degree. It really doesn't matter which side one drives on nearly so much as that everyone agrees to the same rules of driving. Some laws are moral laws. Others are there just to organize/cooperate/solve problems.
"All you have to do is open your mind to all the possibilities."
I'm open for discussion, but I expect an argument to be followed with reasoning and example rather than hyperbole and invective.
"I suspect the founders were brainwashed by the crown, which is why they couldn't imagine a world without the state."
Such a belief stems from the most gross ignorance. I'd suggest reading some history such as the debates of the First Continental Congress - or the Second. Another excellent work providing historical context I recommend is the first and second volumes of the Oxford History of the United States. They cover the pre-colonial and colonial periods up to 1808 in extraordinary detail while providing extensive reference material.
See, I think those are not really laws and shouldn't exist. They can't be derived by logic so I don't care if you try to push that shit.
A law might be that "a road owner has the right to select which side a road user must drive on, otherwise the user is not allowed to use the road". I can see that one being derived using logic from axiomatic assumptions. The way this would be enforced is not by punishment but by the owner using their self-defense rights to stop you from driving on the wrong side. This might include having you pay for damages (cost of enforcement, for example), or even shooting your tiers out.
I guess if there is only one owner of all roads (the state), then sure, they can force all road users to drive on the right. However, enforcing monopolies (by violence) is wrong, so, there wouldn't be a single owner of all roads.
I've had it with you guys authoritarians. In my view, the universal law doesn't allow you to decree that all roads must be driven on the right.
And what is the consequence of allowing people to drive on whichever side of the road they choose? Chaos and accidents. Yes, the law is 100% arbitrary. But it serves a vital purpose - it solves a critical problem.
"A law might be that "a road owner has the right to select which side a road user must drive on..."
And what about automobile manufacturers? Which side do they put the steering wheel on?
You keep trying to upend conventional wisdom without considering the wisdom that made it convention in the first place. There is nothing that says you have to re-invent every wheel in existence.
"I've had it with you guys authoritarians."
That's your decision. Rules provide expectations for outcomes which aid in the evaluation and decision-making process. That they are inconvenient to you is a product of your own choice and nothing more. It isn't going to make them cease to exist any more than you can alter the law of gravity.
Maybe conventional stupidity? That is known to happen.
This is about rights and about using violence to violate them.
A majority (conventional wisdom) doesn't have the right to forcibly make others do as the majority wants. If someone wants to make a 'wrong-sided' road, let them.
They also have to decide this based on free market. If they fuck up then it is on them. They better not fuck up.
It is their right. Some self-important morons in congress don't have a right to force it by violence.
As I've said previously, the road owner should make that determination. Free market would sort it out.
Road users better follow the rules, otherwise they would have to repay damages that result from their not following the rules.
Not really. I apologize for being confusing. When I said "you cannot simply force somebody to behave how you want," I meant to say "you don't have the right to." I mean, you CAN use force on them, but it wouldn't be right/moral. Also, you don't have the right to punish them for not complying with your wishes.
So, you don't have the right to either degree a law or punish someone for not following it. My view is that laws already exist in reality based on logic. You have the right to uncover laws by doing the derivation and publishing results for everyone to check and accept or disprove.
Who cares if some self-proclaimed warlord decrees a law? Who cares if a majority voted to decree a law? Who cares if decreeing a law was allowed by some kind of constitution written by some people? I'm not going to listen to that, and for good reason. I am a person just like them. Who are they to dictate to me how I must behave. I am not their slave! WTF? I don't know where you people are getting these ideas. These are clearly wrong.
I will only listen to logic and reason to tell me what laws are. If you want a law that I must follow, you show me how this law exists from my axiomatic assumptions.
Law enforcement is a separate thing. You seem to think that laws don't exist without enforcement. I disagree. Someone may fail in enforcing the law, but it is still there. Nobody can cancel logic.
So if they rape me, I can't punish them for violating me and my rights because it doesn't "comply with their wishes?" Seriously. Stop and think for just a minute about the downstream effects of your proposed policies. If it is this easy for me to poke holes in them...?
"I am a person just like them. Who are they to dictate to me how I must behave."
This gets back to the whole "Golden Rule" discussion. If you deny an intrinsic commonality among humans which transcends humanity itself, the only logical conclusion is that man is no better than animals and "might makes right" becomes the only logical ruling philosophy. The only way I should treat you with dignity and respect is if there is some innate relationship between us which overrides every single externality: skin color, hair color, eye color, deformity, proclivity, athleticism, mental capacity, etc.
"I will only listen to logic and reason to tell me what laws are."
In a world of perfect beings with perfect knowledge, that would probably work. Let me know if you find such a place in this existence.
I said somewhere in another part of this ginormous thread that, in my world view, this isn't about commonality but about a 'social contract' or 'mutual agreement' between parties not to screw each other over and to cooperate. The two parties don't have to be common.
If you start dictating made up laws to me (that I don't even agree with) and you start punishing me for not following them, don't be surprised when I fuck you over one of these days. We had a deal. You overstepped your bounds.
The current social interactions appear very strange to me. You guys are engaged in a game where you are trying to screw each other over and get away with it. This is how I view society right now. I have a strong urge to fuck all you guys over myself so intensely that you might finally realize what the fuck is wrong with your little game. (I apologize for the colorful language).
I think the police, and eventually the jury, would take a very dim view of that attitude.
This is all assuming I didn't agree with the law because it was arbitrary and not part of the universal law. Of course, if the law as in line with the universal law, I would be in the wrong.
You/they don't have the right to be surprised. Either we all get along or there is a state of war that exists between us. Nobody has the right to decree laws. If they start making moves against me, all bets are off. I am not their slave. Freedom might require some watering of trees with blood of tyrants.
Now, I might have to surrender and submit to statists, but I'm making moves once numbers are on my side. It is only logical. You guys better start thinking about what you are doing.
"If you start dictating made up laws to me..."
Then take yourself out of society and find a place to live by yourself! That is your only option because Life is an Opt-Out not an Opt-In. As for your empty threats, I thought you didn't believe that punishment was moral, yet somehow you believe that you can take punitive action against me for some perceived slight?
"I apologize for the colorful language"
-1. No, you don't. You just want things to be a certain way and when I present counterpoints that poke logical holes in your arguments you get upset. As I stated before, you need to either revise your arguments or come up with a counterargument. Name calling and expletives only underscore the fact that you're arguments don't hold up to intellectual scrutiny near as well as you think.
Let me clarify the point I was trying to make:
Either we agree not to screw each other over and cooperate, or all bets are off. Any action is allowed then.
This notion is at the root of my understanding of society. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't expect your neighbor to not screw you over but you make him allow you to screw him over.
Yet, this is what you statists are basically doing. You are tricking everyone into allowing you to screw everyone over but not the reverse.
I guess I failed in showing you that these are not holes. I'm going to have to think about this some more.
I can't. Predatory statism is predatory. It will find a way to prey on me no matter where I would be.
For example, they will come to me and ask why I'm not paying taxes, then put me in jail and take my stuff and if I defend myself they will just kill me.
You are trying to confuse me here.
By 'wish' I mean voting in an arbitrary law. All I'm saying is that you can't punish other people for not follow your made up law.
Let's say a city council votes in a law stating that all roofs must be red in my town. I paint my roof black. The city punishes me with a fine. This is the situation that I was referring to when I said "Also, you don't have the right to punish them for not complying with your wishes."
Rape is not a law. I guess you can make a law that allows rape... But it wouldn't make it right.
Also, rape violates my universal laws which are not arbitrary. Rape is unjustified violence. Violence is only allowed in certain cases of self-defense. If you get raped then you are allowed to force the perpetrator (by violence) to pay you back for the damage that was caused. Raping them back (or something similar) isn't allowed. The damage was probably substantial anyway, the perpetrator isn't getting off easy. They are probably going to be paying you back for the rest of their remaining life. This begs the question, how would you quantify the damage? I have some ideas about that, if you are interested.
On the other hand, what damage was caused by painting my roof black? My roof is my property. You can't tell me what to do with my property. I didn't break any kind of contract either.
This is not a hole in my logic. I don't understand why you would twist my words this way.
So there are several systems of government. There are options from a dictatorship to a full democracy. What you seem to want is nothing more and nothing less than unanimity in every single point of public policy. That was tried in Athens with a full democracy - literally every person voting on every point of public policy. It fell apart in a matter of decades and turned into mob rule complete with lynchings/executions.
The long and the short of it is that if you don't want to be a member of a society, remove yourself from that society and join another that matches your ideology. If you can find such.
The problem is that no society exists that would match my ideology. I am left picking the least wrong one. I think the US is probably at the top of the list, however, things are changing fast these days.
Additionally, I believe the world has been overtaken by predatory states. It would not be possible for me to escape them. I feel like I am living under a planetary occupation.
And you might want to consider just why that is.
No one here is saying that the current state of the US government is acceptable. They have abrogated the basic principles this nation was founded on and are irredeemably corrupt. There is a war going on between the elites such as the Davos group and the rest of the world. Global "climate change", COVID, ESG - they are all tentacles of the same monster.
So, people would be "voting" on the correctness of the proof, not on whether they agree with the resulting law. Now, maybe some would be clever and would not agree with the proof because they didn't agree with the resulting law. However, that wouldn't count because they would have to provide a counter proof showing how the original proof is wrong. Otherwise, they agree by default.
So, once most laws are discovered, new ones would not appear very often. It would be a very big event when it happens.
I don't think this has ever existed, however, I am not very good at history, so, maybe it did.
The entire problem is that people - even supposed "experts" - are fundamentally flawed. They are ignorant. They are ideologically biased. And they are anything BUT logical. You are assuming people will self-govern at an individual level. A quick look around and we can see that is far from accurate:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls on government would be necessary." - John Adams.
Being imperfect is no excuse for not trying. Society should at least put some effort into it. By the looks of things, you guys are purposefully ignorant.
I don't agree with you that something much closer to perfection (than what exists now) cannot be achieved when it comes to laws.
Predation is the problem. Society is way too comfortable with predation. You guys are unwilling to admit that you are guilty of it.
And you're a jackass.
We can throw around ad hominem all day. All it does is mean that there is no serious/logical discourse taking place.
"I don't agree with you that something much closer to perfection (than what exists now) cannot be achieved when it comes to laws."
No one said that was the case. Certainly not me. But you tend to want to float things as if the perfect is the only thing we should accept and that's just not realistic.
"Predation is the problem. ... You guys are unwilling to admit that you are guilty of it."
This coming from the person who admits A) that he hasn't ever really studied any of the concepts mentioned in his diatribes and B) has no evidence to show that his ideas actually work. Come back to me when you've worked on both and we might be able to have a profitable conversation.
Let's say I am an idiot and I don't know what I'm talking about. How does that invalidate my accusation of statism being predatory? I think I did provide some evidence, such as states organizing wars to increase their territory or steal resources, etc. I think even the US did these things, is that not so?
You present a lot of ideas that you haven't completely thought through. Yet when I point out significant problems or inherent contradictions, you blow them off saying "I'm sure there's a way to figure it out." If you really had it figured out - with solid ideas or practical example - it wouldn't be so hard a sell.
Well, if perfection is truly too far out, I am willing to be patient.
Sorry, I didn't mean it as an insult. My point was that people don't want to know because of what it would mean for them if they find out.
Why wouldn't that work in practice exactly? I'm not seeing it.
I took the time to work through many of the same questions you propose when I was writing my book. I couldn't get around certain realities. If you can, more power to you.
I should read your book too.
I was actually thinking about writing a book myself. However, now that I had a chance to debate with you guys, I am afraid my ideas are so far out that nobody would even understand what I would be saying. This wouldn't necessarily be because my world view is invalid. I think people will not accept it just because it will be accusing them of wrongdoing. They would just deny these ideas because to consider them would be to admit the possibility of guilt. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." According to some statistics, half of US economy is basically government.
I am going to have to read the texts you are referring to. Maybe there is something there that will change my view. However, I doubt it very much. I have seen a lot of argumentation over the course of my life and have made many observations. I am beginning to arrive at a very strong foundational beliefs about humanity. These tell me that people are far from perfect, especially going back in time. As time goes on, humanity seems to be improving its understanding of reality. So, even if the founders were ahead of their time, they are certainly not ahead of our time. Blind belief in their infallibility is not healthy. One must always think critically, even about the work of giants of the past. I am willing to bet that the texts you are referring to contain many ideas that I would consider misconceptions, and yet they were accepted back then and are still accepted now. I always try to question everything and I am finding a lot of wrong stuff people believe in these days and in the past.
When I step back and look at the big picture, I can see that maybe most of the founders were indeed interested in the same things that I am (freedom). However, I can detect that they went about it in an imperfect way. It seems to me that the founders (and current Americans) don't truly understand freedom correctly, or at least in a way that would make sense to me.
Could the founders have been brainwashed by statims? Sure, why not? I see it happening today to an even greater extent.
I would also accuse the founders of not being true to their ideals. They rose up only after they had a big enough grievance. Why didn't they do it earlier? Of course they were statists. Maybe they cared about freedom only when it suited them. Maybe they just wanted a state of their own. When it came time to demonstrate belief in freedom, their ideological descendants started the Civil War instead!
Ah.. Who am I kidding? You guys are all statists.
But I guess it wouldn't hurt to do some research of those texts you mentioned.
"But I guess it wouldn't hurt to do some research of those texts you mentioned."
No, it really wouldn't. I've found that I overestimate my own intelligence and competence after reading from other brilliant minds. It's been humbling, but also empowering.
"I would also accuse the founders of not being true to their ideals. They rose up only after they had a big enough grievance. Why didn't they do it earlier?"
Have you read the Declaration of Independence? They lay it out quite succinctly right there...
"Ah.. Who am I kidding? You guys are all statists."
The refuge of someone who can't construct a logical rebuttal is ad hominem. Your inability to supply sufficient defense of your ideas may be frustrating, but the solution is to refine your argument. I'm a State-certified Debate judge. You're not going to win points with me by calling me names. You have to have a solid argument which withstands rebuttal.
Non-coercive monopolies are just successful businesses, their products/services are so good that nobody else has caught up yet. Alternatively, there is some other market inefficiency that might be causing it. However, these situations are always temporary.
There is competition with utilities, toll roads, etc.
"Non-coercive monopolies are just..."
You just validated my point. Your gripe is with the boogeyman of "government" not monopolies per se.
"There is competition with utilities, toll roads, etc."
Never said there couldn't be, just that in some cases they are impractical. Roads are a classic example because real estate is an extremely constrained resource. Here's another example to consider: electromagnetic radiation, i.e. radio waves. Without a single governing authority, you wouldn't have wi-fi or even airplanes...
Actually, I would define a monopoly as a business that maintains total domination of its market via use of violence or fraud. So, a business that looks like a monopoly but isn't forcing it isn't really a monopoly in my view. The reason for that is any other organization can come in and would be allowed to do the same thing. It's just that nobody did it yet, or there is a lack of something. Force isn't being used, so, I'm ok with that.
I'm going to have to disagree with that one.
There is no licensing for wifi. It is on the unlicensed bands. Yet, it seems to be working fine. The only limitation is transmit power/antenna gain I believe. There are some crazy algorithms for minimizing interference. With beam forming, interference is even less of an issue.
I haven't given too much of a thought to how radio spectrum allocation would work without a state. However, we have analogous examples in similar spaces. Maybe it can be done similar to how IP address allocation is done now. I believe it is owned by ICANN, which is a non-governmental organization. I believe it was initially founded by US government but luckily they gave up control. There are many examples of standard setting organizations in the IT space that I am aware of. One important thing is that they are not using violence to maintain their power to decree rules.
Air traffic control also doesn't need to be run by the state. It can be done privately. Resist your statist urge to centralize everything with violence!
Uh, you are dead wrong there. I'm an amateur radio operator holding the Amateur Extra designation - the highest certification level currently available. ALL electromagnetic emissions are governed by the FCC. Wireless is available on several specific bands on the spectrum including 5 GHz and 900 MHz.
"I haven't given too much of a thought..."
You said it, not me.
"Air traffic control also doesn't need to be run by the state. It can be done privately. Resist your statist urge to centralize everything with violence!"
Stop. And. Think. This. Through. Your internal biases against anything resembling a central governing body are seriously impairing your ability to objectively evaluate the options. The real key is efficiency. And in the case of air traffic control, another key is standard communication which means a body to not only set those standards but enforce them. And not just locally but nationally and _inter_nationally.
It's not violence to seek efficiency. That's you projecting your own biases onto literally everything. Step back for a moment.
I am only against the unjustified use of violence part.
Of course, somebody would need to be executing it but they would use logic to control their decision to use violence.
If they are wrong, they would be screwed. People would sue them for damages and win (based on verifiable logic). So, it would be in their interest to not get that wrong.
If I don't know a state-free solution that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
One needs a license to operate amateur radio but not to operate wifi equipment. As I understand, you need to buy a license to use certain bands as well. I am pretty sure FCC themselves call those bands / wifi equipment as 'unlicensed'. Correct me if I am wrong.
There is another standard which comes into play here called UCC. Every electronic device which goes out in public has to certify that it won't interfere with other devices. (Not sure how extensive your electronics knowledge goes, but flowing electricity creates magnetic fields.) Most of that testing happens in-house with large manufacturers (self-certification). If you've never seen or been in an anechoic chamber, it's quite the experience.
The requirement for an individual license - whether private or commercial - is for broadcasting at a power level where the signals may affect someone else.
Fine, I'll give you that one.
What I was trying to say was that an entity is "bad" if it is committing immoral actions.
You act surprised. As if no idea that comes from anyone else can be correct... [shakes head]
"What I was trying to say was that an entity is "bad" if it is committing immoral actions."
NO. You're trying to justify your position instead of admitting it is wholly flawed.
Sentient beings exist. If they were morally wrong, they couldn't exist. Being sentient, however, they can make immoral actions, ie. actions which violate universal laws. But to say that a sentient being is "bad" based on its decisions is also to admit they would be "good" or even "neutral" depending on other actions: one's categorization of a person would fluctuate from moment to moment, being invalidated almost as soon as the judgement was made. It's clearly an unworkable premise and therefore void.
The act itself, however, is done. It isn't going to change. And it can be objectively compared against an objective standard or law for compliance or congruence. Actions which do not comport with the law are considered immoral or forbidden while actions which comport with law are considered moral or acceptable.
Let me attempt to reword it:
"The state is by design a monopoly that is maintained by coercion. It must continually engage in coercion to maintain its existence. Coercion is immoral, therefore, the state is an entity that continually engages in immoral actions. If it stops these actions, it ceases to be a monopoly and, therefore, it ceases to be a state by that definition."
Is that better?
I guess by this logic Nazis might start being "good" or "neutral" at some point. Maybe after they killed off all the non-aryan races.
We see that with such natural laws as the law of gravitational attraction. You really have no choice but to obey that law. The law or constant value of pi is the same: if the value of pi changes, all calculations based on it similarly frustrate themselves.
The second flaw in your statement is in equating coercion and justified force. One of the major flaws in your proposed ideology is the lack of an adjudication and enforcement mechanism which is consistent and authoritative.
I don't know if you saw my take on this, but in my system adjudication is done by logic (which is universally 'consistent' and 'authoritative') and enforcement is done by private security firms paid by the people. There would be no conflicts between the different security firms because they all are following the same universal law.
Not really, I just don't agree with what you would consider justified.
Physical laws don't need enforcement. They are self-enforcing. Why then do your societal laws need an adjudication and an enforcement mechanism? Shouldn't they also be self-enforcing?
If I look at my system for laws, they actually do seem to be self-enforcing. With my system, if you 'violate' laws, you don't actually 'violate' them, you just change the nature of your interaction with the other 'sentient' being. So, if you steal from someone, you turn them into your slave. This other person then has the right (by this universal law) to defend themselves with violence. So, nothing is really getting 'violated.'
Not really. I consider what you consider laws to be not really laws but peoples preferences. Enforcing other people's preferences on someone by force is immoral.
I guess these days it can only be done by leaving Earth.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That WHENEVER any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Q
1. There doesn't appear to be a "creator."
2. People actually come out quite unequal due to genetic and environmental factor. So, the 'self-evident' part is a bit of a stretch. Although, i guess maybe they meant 'equal in rights', probably meaning nobody has the right to rule over others, which I would agree with.
3. I deny profusely the idea that somebody grants me rights. I have rights because of logic and reason: I am my own sovereign being. Nobody has the right to tell me what to do. I am nobody's slave.
4. You guys don't have the right to institute a state to 'govern' anyone, even if you allow them to have representation. You guys are a bunch of nasty statists. I would consider you to be on the same level as the Nazis.
5. I believe abolishing a government would be considered by US law an insurrection and not legal, so, it seems there is a logical inconsistency with all that abolition talk. A lot of empty words...
6. There is nothing wrong with peacefully swapping out societal management organizations, especially when they are financially nonviable. In fact, I would argue that should be done pretty often. By peaceful, I mean we should be allowed to stop paying them and start paying someone else to provide the same services.
I agree to be controlled by logic and reason only. You can't just make up a law by vote of the majority of any kind. If you want to create a law, you have to prove (with a formal proof) that it is based on the most basic assumed-universal laws, such as the golden rule.
2. Equality is of station or opportunity, not of temperament or ability and especially not outcome. See Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
3. Again, the Founders believed heavily in individual rights which are inherent in mankind. The use of a Creator was to cut off the notion that rights derived from Government rather than the other way around.
4. The Founders were the first ones to recognize that governance begins with the assent of the People. It was a novel concept. But once the People assent to institute government and establish meaningful social constructs governing trade, communication, etc., they have spoken. We've had discussions on this forum about having everyone who turns 18 and wants to vote agree to the terms of the Constitution in order to do so as an explicit assent rather than the implicit assent assumed today as a birthright effect.
5. The Founders specifically stated that their desire for self-rule necessitated an explanation of their reasoning and a defense for their actions and they listed seventeen specific and egregious offenses perpetrated by the King offensive to even their nominal membership as citizens of Great Britain.
6. It's an interesting idea, but wholly impractical. We already have an incredibly tyrannical "private" entity called the Federal Reserve, yet can we swap that out? No. What you're really talking about is absolution of debt on a whim.
"You can't just make up a law by vote of the majority of any kind."
People have bad ideas all the time! Ideally, the laws enacted by men - especially moral laws - should have solid purchase in universal, natural law. I think we agree there. But the people who typically desire power are precisely the ones who think they can "transcend" these natural laws. They seek to be if not immune at least inoculated from their natural enforcement because of their own arrogance. We'll never have a society which completely adheres to natural law until we are able to control ourselves to such a degree that formal government is a sideline.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
The 'consent of the governed' are empty words, propaganda to placate the masses. I observe something entirely different in reality.
What are you going to do at 18 if you disagree? Leave to go be someone else's slave? Voting is not the way to arrive at the truth. I don't even think that people at 18 have had enough time to correctly determine how to vote. Maybe 30?
The only true solution to the madness is the abolition of the state.
I wouldn't object to having a societal contract one has to sign when one turns 18 prior to voting which outlined the duties and benefits of being a citizen. Problem is what do you do with the people who don't want to sign? You pretty much have to deport them, but to where? They aren't citizens of any other nation...
See, that's statist propaganda right there.
The state is the most powerful criminal organization that takes over the civilization by force. There is only one state because it has taken over all the others.
Actually, the western civilization has multiple states but I can see them eventually merging.
People agreeing to band together and agreeing upon norms and conventions of behavior which benefit everyone is one thing. A state is something else entirely. At least that is what I observe. The state forces itself onto people and, eventually, things are done that nobody would agree with and which benefit nobody but the parasites. Example: war, confiscation of property.
"People agreeing to band together and agreeing upon norms and conventions of behavior which benefit everyone is one thing. A state is something else entirely."
Please explain to me how you have a civilization/society without a government. The very effort of creating a society lays out the rules for its existence - most particularly the rules for membership and discipline (along with the means for such). It inherently recognizes and authorizes leadership and governing authority from among its membership. That's precisely what was laid out in the Declaration of Independence and established in the Constitution. Every nation worldwide has a governing document of this kind. Every tribal entity which has ever existed has had a verbal agreement along these lines. Unless you can explain how to have a society _without a government, your argument lacks all foundation and consequently must be acknowledged as void.
"The state forces itself onto people..."
Let's clarify significantly. The State is an ephemeral boogeyman consisting of what? People. Tyranny consists of people trying to coerce other people - and likely (ab)using their authority to do it. Look at any conflict and you have coercion by at least one of the parties. The resolution of that coercion can either be decided peacefully according to an acceptable adjudication framework (within a society or nation) or it can be decided through armed force (between societies or nations).
Coercion and tyranny exist regardless of government's presence or absence: they are a result of individual people acting on their greed and lust. A person alone (without society) is left to fend for himself/herself against the brutes and brigands (which interestingly enough have their own hierarchy, a.k.a. government). What's the alternative? Grouping together for mutual defense, etc., i.e. forming a society. But just like a firearm doesn't kill people, neither do governments. People - particularly people who lust for power - are the root of coercion.
Statists like to flaunt the misconception that only a state can provide law and order to society. However, not only do I think it is blatantly untrue, but I think it is 'propaganda' used to justify state's existence. So, I accused you of pushing statist propaganda. That was not a misdirection.
If we look at the history of the state, it becomes clear how the state originated. The idea of 'government of the people by the people' is relatively recent idea, or, shall I say, 'propaganda'. The state manufactures consent these days to make it look like the people are in charge, so, I would argue the 'people' are still not in charge. Previously, there were kings claimed their authority by divine appointment. Religion was a useful tool for them. Sometimes they claimed the role of the 'protectors of the realm'. They used whatever worked. Those were weak claims, but worked due to the masses not being educated. However, as masses became educated and renounced religion, those claims no longer worked. So, the state came up with the self-governance scheme. Prior to all that in antiquity there existed war lords that raided settlements of farmers. Eventually, they decided to settle down and claim territory belonging to them. That is how monarchies began. You see, if we go back to the beginning of the state, it was all violence and trickery. The reason why these parasites exist though is because they are predators. They don't want to work. They want everybody as their slaves.
My problem with the state is not that it is 'government' but that it is 'illegitimate government'. It is illegitimate precisely because it is predatory.
I can imagine a society ruled by a set of rules that are logically derived. These would not be subject to the whims of monarchs or manipulated masses. The government in such a society would effectively be academia-like community in charge of discovering laws and a separate collection of organizations providing law enforcement services. This society would not have a 'state' as I would view it. There would not be any way for predation to sneak in.
I would agree with you that coercion is bad. I agree with you that certain people are at the root of coercion. I would say the lust for power is not there because of itself but because it allows predation. So, let's abolish 'power'. No one should be allowed to make rules but logic and reason.
It is very difficult for me to argue with you guys regarding all this. It is very obvious to me what is going on, but you guys appear to not get it. You guys don't want to be left alone 'against the brutes and brigands', so what do you do? You create a bigger brigand (the state)! Fuck me.
The premise behind the Declaration of Independence is that only those being ruled can instantiate a moral and lawful government because the power to rule must be delegated. A statist is an elitist who believes that power can be seized in order to coerce others into certain actions. Two very different means with the same end, yet it is the means which have moral implications.
"If we look at the history of the state..."
That's an interesting take on things. Here's my take:
Throughout its history, mankind has struggled with the concept of rulership and has experimented with all sorts of rules and conventions ordering and governing human interactions. The most simple form of government exists in the family, where parents rule over their children. As those families extended, societies tended to defer to patriarchal hierarchies for their governors. When one considers the natural segregation of duties within a family and the natural differences in the sexes, this isn't really unnatural as the women would have naturally gravitated to child-bearing, child-rearing, and a nurturing disposition while the men's greater physical attributes would have naturally gravitated them to be the providers and defenders. As families continued to grow and generations passed, the familial heads would have - of necessity - been forced to designate heirs to their natural authority.
Eventually, either due to dissatisfaction, envy, jealousy, size, etc. group after group splintered off and over time, eventually there began to be many individual groups of any number of sizes and predilections. Contentions inevitably arose and those which couldn't be solved peacefully turned to war. The victorious either returned to their own lands and rule, or got a taste for it and decided to expand their empires. As the groups consolidated either due to mutual pacts or force, it became too much for individuals to rule and so was born the bureaucracy, usually supported by armed guards loyal to the ruler. In the "expansionist"-minded societies, they used this justification - and the bureaucracies - in order to tax their societies in order to provide for the rulers and their cadres and their plans and wars.
As to the individual ideologies of these groups, there were clearly a vast array. Some preferred a strongly hierarchical structure with familiar ruling lines. Some revolved around loyalties and politics where the "strongest" vied for power. After several millennia in which virtually every concept of government had been tried, one group of people came up with a rather novel idea and formed their own Nation. They defended it with their "blood and sacred honor" and managed to win their independence and eventually rise into the greatest nation the world has ever known.
But there are always the envious and power-hungry. They hated the idea of a free people who chose for themselves. They longed to continue their rapaciousness and feudalism and so sought to undermine and overthrow this free nation. And they have slowly sought to destroy the principles which made this nation great. Right now, they threaten to throw this nation back into the chaos and disparity with the elitists at the helm. Time will only tell if they are successful.
"It is very difficult for me to argue with you guys regarding all this."
I think you confuse "argue with" and "persuade." In order to argue well one has to present a solid logical argument and in order to persuade the rational, one must present a better alternative. (I'm a state-certified debate judge: I've seen a fair share of good and bad arguments and counter-arguments. And I'll point out that most of the people on this forum are of substantially higher caliber of mind than your standard fare of internet trolls. Consider it a badge of honor to engage with us.)
It isn't that we agree with the massive and tyrannical state the US government has turned into. That's not it at all. The problem is that your anti-state ideology can't withstand the logical challenges presented to it. You can't fight organized crime with disorganization. It's alluded with with Ragnar in AS, but Rand doesn't present it as a strategy which wins. Instead, those who object to the looting of society bow out and form their own society of producers. You'll find tremendous support for those ideas here.
I have thought about this for a long time. I came to the conclusion that most people are crazy. My observations are of a completely delusional society. There is not much logic to people's behavior. I feel very lonely in the world full of crazy people. Maybe I'm crazy myself.
The current emphasis on "feelings" especially in the education community, is not helping. Some few people seem to be able to think logically on their own. Others need to be taught. The schools, in many cases are teaching the opposite.
"They are a bunch of children, trying to survive, desperately, and very badly."
Unfortunately many of them will never reach cognitive maturity.
I haven't received a single argument from you guys that I can say with confidence destroys my position. By the way, I wouldn't say I am 'anti-state', more like 'anti-predation, with the opinion that the state is the most powerful predator'.
"You can't fight organized crime with disorganization."
There are decentralized systems that can exist that can take on the centralized ones. Bitcoin seems like one example. I have some proposals that I may put forward if you are interested.
It's you who has to convince us, not you convincing yourself...
"There are decentralized systems..."
Bitcoin is still centralized in that it has a single algorithm and a constrained/limited number of "coins" validated against a fixed infrastructure. There is also the little problem in that it isn't really recognized as legal tender... You'd have a better argument if you could show an example from history where a de-centralized system overthrew a centralized one. I can't come up with a single example...
Bitcoin is somewhat workable as it is. I pay people with it. It works as a medium of exchange, based on my personal experience. However, it lacks some of the properties that money should have. I see that as something to improve on, not an indictment of the whole idea.
One issue is that it is used in a predatory way (ponzi scheming / pump and dump / etc).
The limited number of coins thing is also an issue. Coins/tokens need to be tied to physical property that actually exists. Minting new coins should only be done when such property is created. Destruction of the property needs to lead to removal of coins from circulation. USD was supposed to be tied to quantity of gold, according to US constitution. That fits better with my preference, however, I would still prefer that it would not be limited to just gold. Any property should do, provided that it doesn't depreciate too quickly or measures are taken to remove tokens from circulation as the property depreciates.
I have a whole unique theory of money. If you guys are interested I can talk about it.
Because you think you want to be the authority. Not to be too adversarial, but this is a very arrogant mindset because it denies one's own ignorance by assuming you know better than anyone else.
"The idea of forcing people to accept something as a repayment of debt is some statist ..."
You really need to read the history of the United States. Commerce on a large scale only works when you have standards not only in weights and measures but in legal tender. That's why Congress was explicitly given the responsibility to identify and establish those standards: the initial lack of standards was a significant impediment to free trade between the States prior to adoption of the Constitution and standard weights and measures in the early 1800's. Also note the chaos caused by the various regional banks who established their own standards of lending/redemption.
"Bitcoin is somewhat workable as it is. ... I see that as something to improve on, not an indictment of the whole idea."
I agree. I'm not opposed to the idea (of Bitcoin). I'm just waiting to adopt it until its acceptance reaches critical mass. I don't have the resources to speculate.
"I have a whole unique theory of money. If you guys are interested I can talk about it."
Please start a new thread. Before you do, you might do a search on this forum, as we've had discussions on money frequently. You can anticipate some of the questions which will be thrown at you.
Too bad they didn't chose metric, lol.
...is a story of the state never letting a good crisis go to waste...
I'm smelling statist propaganda...
To be fair, I don't know much about this. But it sounds like a frivolous excuse for state control.
Not really. I don't care if people agree with me or not. I don't think highly of people's opinions.
I might know better for myself, yes. If I don't feel too confident about it, I might chose someone else's expert opinion. But it is my choice. No one has the right to make it for me.
How does 'single algorithm' or 'constrained/limited number of "coins" validated against a fixed infrastructure' points cause Bitcoin to be centralized? I am not seeing it.
Also, what do you mean by 'validated against a fixed infrastructure' exactly?
When I say something is decentralized, what I mean is that it has no entity that has arbitrary control over it. An algorithm is not an entity. Limited number of coins doesn't seem to have anything to do with control.
Blocks are added by an unpredictable entity based on rules that everyone agrees to follow. Failure to follow the rules leads to rejection of the block and waste of your effort. Developers of the software can't do stuff that the community rejects, this will lead to forks as was demonstrated before. I am sure things can be improved, but I would say Bitcoin is pretty decentralized.
That's a very different definition of de-centralized than those found in any dictionary. What you're really getting at is the mindset and ideology of the person/people in control of any given system. And that is certainly a cause for concern/debate when they tend towards tyranny.
But if you want to effectively communicate with others, you need to stick with common definitions. It's the reason why Rand's "selfishness" definition never caught on. Language is as much a community standard as anything...
Maybe I made a mistake in that definition too...
So, what I mean is that no single person can change how Bitcoin works, or any other decentralized system. The whole community must agree or there is going to be a split. If a state wants to take over Bitcoin, they are shit out of luck. The only thing they can do is outlaw it.
My secondary goal is try to convince you guys of my hypothesis. If I am successful in that, it would allow me to gain additional confidence in the truthfulness of my theories. I may then attempt to do it on a bigger scale, which would be required if I am to help us out of our current predicament (being a slave to the state).
The point I was trying to make was that you guys haven't presented any "logical challenges" to my "anti-state ideology" that I wasn't able to counter successfully, at least in my opinion.
"1. The American Revolution (1775-1783): The 13 American colonies, with their decentralized system of government and militia, overthrew the centralized British monarchy. This led to the formation of the United States of America.
2. The French Revolution (1789-1799): The decentralized and radical groups of the French people, such as the Jacobins and the sans-culottes, overthrew the centralized and oppressive monarchy of King Louis XVI. This led to the establishment of the First French Republic.
3. The Russian Revolution (1917): The decentralized and organized Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the centralized and unstable Russian Provisional Government. This led to the establishment of the Soviet Union.
4. The Cuban Revolution (1953-1959): The decentralized and guerrilla tactics of Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement overthrew the centralized and corrupt government of Fulgencio Batista. This led to the establishment of a socialist government in Cuba.
5. The Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989): The decentralized and widespread protests across Eastern Europe, coupled with the weakening of the centralized Soviet Union, led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the eventual collapse of the centralized Communist governments in the region."
I don't know of these work though... maybe?
Examples of decentralized systems are everywhere.
The Internet is an example of a decentralized communication network. Initially, there were some centralized variants but they died out.
Internet censorship doesn't work because of the way Internet works. I would say that is a win for decentralized systems.
BitTorrent completely overpowered all copyright infringement enforcement.
One thing I will add is that centralization is supported by the predatory entities because it is easier to take over a single point than a million. So, I suspect they promote centralization, then take it over and begin their predation.
2. The French Revolution. This one potentially passes the "decentralized" effort test, but as the result was a socialist nation and thousands of bloody executions it hardly qualifies as a success.
3. The Russian Revolution. This was a coup. The Bolsheviks persuaded the Russian Navy to back them. What many don't know was that it was communists who were sent from the Democratic Party in the United States who started it. Not a de-centralized effort and certainly not a moral one.
4. Cuban revolution. This was two political factions duking it out. Castro was very organized and had his own fiefdom which he merely expanded to include an entire country after he seized power. Not a de-centralized effort and certainly not a moral one.
5. Fall of the Berlin Wall. Was this one caused by decentralized forces or simply the natural result of bad policy?
"The Internet is an example of a decentralized communication network."
Uh, you understand what the Domain Name System is, don't you? It is thirteen primary servers which ultimately control all of the routing for the Internet. Completely centralized... The DNS servers, however, are maintained by a private, non-profit rather than the government.
"Internet censorship doesn't work..."
Tell that to the Chinese people. Or the Canadians due to their new laws.
But let's get to the real "boogeyman" as you define it: centralization. Every successful business centralizes its decision-making. Every successful community or nation does the same. Why? Efficiency. De-centralization means a lack of specialization and efficiency. It is literally counter-productive. The real question is not about centralization vs de-centralization but rather the ideology employing it. Tool vs person using tool.
I don't know if I would be against voluntary centralization. I am against centralization only if the state forces it for control. If there was no state, I probably wouldn't mind it too much if I am allowed to opt out.
I do agree that centralized systems are easier to set up/manage than decentralized ones.
They are pretty good at bypassing it, or so I hear.
Well what do you expect, it was a chat bot. Sorry, my history is not too strong. I guess I can remember there was a period of anarchy described in the bible before the kings.
On the other hand, is that true history or one written from someone with an agenda? Rhetorical question.
I did hear the theory that Lenin was an agent or something.
I think the French Revolution should be considered successful because they did overthrow the previous government. If it was decentralized then it did overthrow a centralized one. It doesn't matter that there were bloody executions or that it was socialist.
There is a solution to that.
"It doesn't matter that there were bloody executions or that it was socialist."
But don't you also assert that for an action to be moral it has to comport with universal moral laws? How can an execution do that?
The routing tables in the Internet routers are compiled by a decentralized algorithm, at least on the large scale.
The Internet is TCP/IP and BGP etc.
Still, I would say DNS is somewhat decentralized. The only problem area is the 13 root nameservers.
"The routing tables in the Internet routers are compiled by a decentralized algorithm..."
The algorithms are standards proposed and accepted by the IEEE. That's centralization. DE_centralization would be everyone trying to come up with and implement their own communications protocols. You'd get another Tower of Babel.
You're so incredibly desperate to challenge ANY centralization/government. It's a perfect example of where your bias overrides any claim to logic you think you have.
"Still, I would say DNS is somewhat decentralized. The only problem area is the 13 root nameservers."
You do realize that one of the core principles in logical thinking is that a rule only holds if there are NO/ZERO exceptions. Any exception invalidates the rule. And in this case, it's not even a tertiary violation but _the core foundation of the entire internet.
I wouldn't define a statist that way.
In my use of the term, a statist is one that supports centralized government control over the population. There are a number of attributes of this government, one being a monopoly on force.
So, I would consider most people to be statist, not because they want to be statists but because they have been brainwashed into it. My view is that no rational person would support such a thing. The logic behind my opinion on statism seems pretty straight forward to me, which is why I am frustrated when you guys don't seem to understand it. I might be wrong, but I just don't see where.
It doesn't matter much how the power is seized. You can do it by proclaiming to be a dictator or you can do it by proclaiming representative democracy. The end result is the same: you put a gun to people's heads if they don't agree with you.
...there is no valid government. Your theory only works in a universe consisting of one and only one sentient being.
"My view is that no rational person would support [government]."
Government immediately comes into existence with the introduction of a second sentience into the universe. Government is nothing more than that agreement between two or more sentient beings regarding their interactions, i.e. what is acceptable and what is not. There are certainly multiple forms of government, but you take the (frankly) perverse and ridiculous stand that all government is immoral - this despite the fact that you support the Golden Rule (which is nothing more than a societal governing statement).
I suggest that the reason you can not "understand" is because your argument is an inherent contradiction and can't be understood, and these as a direct result of your definitions. You will only find understanding when you adjust your definitions to match reality.
My issue is not with "government" in the sense that you refer to (agreement/rules). My issue is with the "state".
A state is an organization with attributes that include the following:
- monopoly on use of violence
- monopoly on law making
- monopoly on statehood in its territory
In other words, you might say a state is a "centralized government." When I said "centralized government" (or just "government") I actually meant to say "a state".
I have nothing against an agreement between two sentient beings. I have nothing against having rules for society. The problem is with some beings claiming the rights to attributes like those listed above.
What I am observing in the world are states, not government in your sense (agreement/rules). I guess there is the golden rule and others that "good" people try to adhere to, but they do it regardless of the existence of the state and its support for it.
You conflate a state with governing/rules. I suspect that is due to statist propaganda.
I would support a set of laws derived from something like the golden rule / etc, but this is not a contradiction. The derivation of these rules should be done publicly and by anyone who wants to invest their time into it. These rules would not be arbitrary, confidence in their correctness would be as high as possible before they are enforced. The enforcement of these rules should be done commercially, and not by some monopolist organization. This can be considered government in your sense of the word.
It is indeed immoral to use violence (except maybe self-defense). By making up a law on a whim (without proofs) and using violence against those who refuse to follow it, you are committing immoral acts. This is wrong. You can't do that. I never agreed to this arrangement. Nobody in their right mind would ever agree to it.
They defend their monopoly with violence. How would you feel if a roofer came to your house and forced you to buy a new roof, and if you refused they would burn down your house? But that is exactly what state is doing. They force you to pay for a new war and if you refuse they put you in jail and take your shit. This is what you are defending.
That's because you choose to employ unconventional definitions of commonplace terms. So long as you persist in this, you're going to experience more of the same.
"The problem is with some beings claiming the rights to attributes like those listed above."
You're going to have to be specific here, but let me ask: is it not correct (as pointed out in the Declaration of Independence) that power may only be delegated from that one already possesses, i.e. that government of the People comes as The People delegate to government the expression of controls they themselves originally possess?
"What I am observing in the world are states, not government in your sense..."
A State is a legal entity comprising the conjoined will of the People it represents. A government is merely the apparatus by which the will of the People takes shape. I have never maintained any other definition of either.
"I would support a set of laws derived from something..."
No disagreement.
"The enforcement of these rules should be done commercially, and not by some monopolist organization."
So flesh out your ideas into a full working diagram, etc. It's one thing to have a flash-in-the-pan idea and quite another to think it through to the point of actual implementation. Then feel free to present your entire thesis and defend it.
"It is indeed immoral to use violence... I never agreed to this arrangement..."
You have two choices. One is that you can seclude yourself from EVERYONE else. Then all you have to contend with are the natural laws of the universe. The other choice is to live in a society of people who are flawed, ignorant, temperamental beings - beings who bludgeon their way through this existence as they try to figure it out. Beings who make mistakes and injure each other - sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.
Laws and governance are set in place whenever there are two or more human beings in the same place contending for the same resources, space, etc. There is no avoiding this. Therefore laws and governance - in whatsoever formal structure as is agreed upon - are a natural product of mere existence. Your being born into such an existence puts you right into the middle of it. You can gripe about it all you want. You can invent for yourself a fantasy where it doesn't exist. But the 2x4 of Reality can't really be dodged.
Your biggest confusion and error lies in the mistaken conflation of the tool - government - and the people wielding the tool. Only choices can be moral - not instruments. Choices come from sentient beings and are a product of knowledge, ideology, and will.
I support a moral law of non-coercion. I do not support the immoral acts of those who have perverted our morals and misused government to further their own power. The sooner you understand this key fact, the sooner you will realize that there is a lot more we agree upon than that we disagree upon.
I'll be honest, I am not completely sure what you are getting at here. I don't even know the meaning of some of these phrases, but let me attempt to respond.
I think the Declaration of Independence is a document about United States for gullible people. Some of it is agreeable.
Is it correct in saying that people delegate power to government? No. Which people? Nice words though... Sounds like an attempt to justify an insurrection.. which I would fully support.
Is it correct in saying that power may only be permitted to be delegated by the people that people already have? Sounds like the the government acts as an agent of the people. I would allow that, sure, but only if I had the choice not to delegate or to delegate to someone else. That's not what is happening in real life though.
What is really happening is that government (the state, a particular organization made of particular people) takes whatever power it wants, claims people gave it to it, gaslights the people, brainwashes people, steals people's property, etc.
I'm going to try responding to the rest a bit later.
Then allow me to suggest that you either ask questions or do some research. These are quite fundamental concepts and a failure to understand them and their implications sully every other potential understanding. (As an aside, it's also quite arrogant to deride an idea you do not comprehend.)
"What is really happening is that government (the state, a particular organization made of particular people) takes whatever power it wants, claims people gave it to it, gaslights the people, brainwashes people, steals people's property, etc."
Let's clarify, shall we? PEOPLE attempt to seize power, gaslight, brainwash, steal, loot, etc. because they seek to control others - despite being unable to control themselves. HOW they attempt to seize power is merely a choice in tooling - similar to selecting 9mm vs .45.
I think your take is very naive.
Those 'envious and power-hungry' are actually what I would categorize as predatory. They don't hate free people, they see them as prey.
I would agree with most of what you said, however, I think you are missing the 'predation' part of the story. In fact, the understanding seems to be missing in most people.
Let's think through this logically.
You can make a living by producing what you use, or you can make a living by taking it from someone else who produced it. Prey exist by producing. Predators exist by taking. This can be easily observed in nature. Would you not agree this dynamic can exist in human communities?
My hypothesis is that the predator/pray dynamic exists front and center in societies. Some societies may have a small amount of it, which is when they undergo a civilizational boom. Eventually, predators increase in number and lead to downfall. War is what usually happens in the end (either a civil war or an invasion). War is attractive to predators because it is their business to rape and pillage. The interesting thing is that most predators get killed in a war, so, the society returns to a more sustainable level of predation and is able to recover for a time.
Think about this. When society produces more than it consumes, the amount of wealth grows. Then, it becomes more cost effective to steal, so, people start stealing and stop producing. Then, wealth decreases, eventually leading to widespread poverty. Eventually, mostly everything is gone. There is nothing for the predators to do but to either kill each other over scraps or switch to being productive again. Where am I going wrong with this logic?
My view on US is that some productive people left Europe and settled in North America. Their low predation levels allowed them to 'rise into the greatest nation the world has ever known'. However, US seems to have peaked around 100 years ago and it seems to be on the decline ever since. All of what you see around you is are symptoms of increasing predation. Eventually, some great culling event will take place, such as a civil war or something else. Most predators will either die (due to the lack of prey) or switch back to being productive. The only way to avoid it is to understand the source of the problem and resolve it.
Your story about patriarchy is nice and peaceful, however, nature is brutal. My view of it is that government is mafia and war is the business of the predators. Maybe in the beginning you might have a non-predatory government. However, eventually it will get taken over by predatory elements. You can put a lipstick on a pig all you want, but you will end up getting screwed anyway.
I think it no small observation to also note that a productive society is also a happy society and moral society because people are principled: hard-working, self-controlling, etc. and therefore have little need for extensive formal government. On the contrary, if society has a large number of free-loaders, formal government grows in order to be able to confiscate (tax) from the producers in order to administer (bureaucracy) and distribute to the looters.
"Eventually, some great culling event will take place, such as a civil war or something else."
Agreed. The producers can only support a looting society for so long before its own weight causes its dissolution.
"Your story about patriarchy is nice and peaceful, however..."
It's not necessarily nice or peaceful, but it is accurate. Peace happens when the producers are in charge of society. War happens when the looters are in charge. To me, its that simple.
One more thing remains: the realization that the state is a predator.
No one questions the tendency of those who seek power and gain to seek control of government to further those ends. Benjamin Franklin warned about it >200 years ago and the Founders enabled the Constitution with the first and ONLY set of checks and balances in government knowing that without those checks the government would degenerate into tyranny. We've gone on in post after post about the long, slow slide of this nation into tyranny and noted various bellweathers and crucial points in history. We've debated Chevron Deference, Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey, and many, many more topics. You overestimate yourself to think you are the first one to bring up these thoughts in this forum.
Sorry, I just got here recently.
However, I assumed you guys were proponents of Ayn Rand's ideas and would fit a particular categorization of opinions, some of which I would find incorrect. I was going through life yelling silently every time I heard arguments between collectivists and individualists. It was so plainly obvious to me, I couldn't hold it any longer and had tell someone that you were both wrong and that the source of your problems was predation, not socialism or capitalism.
See my first post:
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
May I put forward my suspicion that maybe these "checks and balances" are not so effective after all?
Supposedly, the separation of powers of the three branches of government (judicial, executive, legislative) were supposed to provide a limit on the power of each other. When I heard this, I found it strange that people gullibly accept this idea. Tell me, what is there to stop these three branches of government from conspiring against the people? Nothing, as far as I can tell...
I scoff at the founders' bad idea...
My view on religion is that it is an informational virus. It seeks to replicate from brain to brain (via language) and undergoes natural selection. Religion is a form of life, an example of spontaneous abiogenesis. I guess the Christian variety was pretty successful in infecting the 'Founders,' so, they used it in their writings. If there is a creator, I'm willing to bet it is far different from what is accepted on faith in Christianity.
I guess the invocation of a creator is not such a big issue, just a minor imperfection.
"I guess the invocation of a creator is not such a big issue, just a minor imperfection."
On the contrary, Madison's writings on the matter indicate it was deliberate choice. The Founders left the matter vague to maximize the individual pursuit of religion and speech, but made it clear that they supported a framework of moral absolutes that humanity could investigate and adopt, but could not invent or circumvent.
You are welcome to believe (or not) in whatever course of action you wish. That's the great freedom America has historically espoused.
Personally, I can't logically arrive at a system of universal, individual rights without starting from a Creator. Every time I try to start from a position of atheism, I get stuck in the logical circle of might makes right...
Religion from my point of view is nothing more than what kind of future one wants to have after this life, associating what we do here as having direct relevance on what goes on there. From there, its a matter of what kind of existence one wants to have there and then determining whether or not that comports with reality.
You would pick a set of assumptions that are so universal that nobody in their right mind would argue with.
One idea is the golden rule (do onto others). It has been known to come about in multiple cultures independently. I think everybody would agree with it.
You can come up with a sort of an inverse of the golden rule:
Don't do to others that you don't want others to do to you.
This will give you things like:
No violence
No fraud
No murder
No theft
"Might makes right" would violate this because you don't want someone more powerful to force something on you, so it would be wrong for you to force something on someone else less powerful.
It appears that the non-aggression principle and voluntarism would be derived from the golden rule, correct me if I am wrong.
The equal rights idea also is somewhat related to this.
Self-defense would be allowed, which is how you would enforce these laws.
When one starts with just what one can observe, one may only make potential relationship decisions based on the external/observable. The inherent quandary is that the Golden Rule regarding relationships assumes an innate equality even in the face of external inequality. I can look at someone else and observe them and conclude in seconds that they are not equivalent to myself. Similar, but not equivalent. One might take the cautious approach and assume that the differences place one's self at a disadvantage, but certainly not on equal footing. Thus the conclusion of might makes right.
If you can see something I don't, please chime in.
I thought about this for a while but I can't understand your point here.
I think the golden rule is not about physical equality, but the equality of treatment. It requires the ability to communicate and cooperate.
Both parties agree to cooperate fairly (equally). The common link is the understanding that if you cooperate, you both get more out of it then if you did not cooperate. Both of you don't even have to be human. It might be a human and a dog. The important thing is that both parties understand that cooperation is better than not and communicate to each other about wanting to make a pact. The golden rule is just a statement about the nature of the pact.
Completely agree. My point is that the Golden Rule itself isn't an axiom, i.e. it isn't self-evident. There is a reason why people should treat each other kindly - and I agree they should. But anything which isn't axiomatic must be derived logically in order to hold. That means we have to be able to link the concepts through either inductive or conclusive reasoning.
We can look at any object in the universe and describe it using color, texture, size, shape, etc. But what A) truly defines something as human and B) leads us to conclude that we should treat other humans with respect? Without a reference 100% external to humanity itself - something which supercedes the physical/external - the differences between two human beings (in anything from appearance to capability) knock the interpersonal balance askew. Without something to balance those scales, there is no way to equalize those differences and thereby infer an equality of station deserving of innate respect.
It's that equivalency there a step beyond human identification which has to be resolved. It provides a critical context for the human interaction which follows.
I don't think it matters if two parties are both humans. The only thing that matters is whether they have agency and can communicate to be able to establish the cooperative agreement.
My thinking leads me to conclude that we should not treat other humans as being part of the agreement if they demonstrate that they don't agree to our terms. Predatory entities, such as the state, should be considered to be hostile and should be at least defended against.
One thing of note that I keep thinking about and that you hinted at is as follows. A pact between a human and a fly (assuming they could communicate). The difference in capability between parties is so great that any cooperation with a fly may not matter to a human. The human may not benefit much from the services of a fly. I guess in that case no agreement will exist because the human has more important things to do. Sucks for the fly, but what can you do.
The foundation for the Golden Rule assumes an intrinsic link between all of humanity which transcends humanity itself - some innate characteristic or commonality. In that way, it could be axiomatic. The difficulty for the atheist is that his ideology asserts that there is nothing intrinsic about a human being: that each is entirely derived from natural processes, etc. and is independent from any other. Do you begin to see the conundrum?
This isn't about anything other than the agreement to cooperate between entities with agency.
If there is an agreement, it is on equal terms. Nobody gets special privileges. Hence, the golden rule.
There doesn't need to be any commonality, except possession of agency by the entities and the ability to communicate.
I don't see any conundrums. You either make the deal or you kill each other.
"You either make the deal or you kill each other."
That is the quintessence of "might makes right..."
I don't know if I properly understood what you said, let me know if I got something wrong.
An axiom is something taken as true without proof.
1. We have to start with something. You can't have a proof without a starting point.
2. Axioms are obviously true, no one can deny them.
I don't think it matters if we can go deeper and find some more basic axiom.
I proposed that (something like) the golden rule is to be taken as a starting point for deriving a system of laws. Why?
1. We have to start with something.
2. Nobody would argue with some proposition like the golden rule.
I guess we can go simpler and use 'contract on equal terms' as an axiom. It is also equivalent to the 'men are created equal' thing.
I don't think our system of universal laws needs to necessarily relate to physical attributes of entities entering into the contract. It is just an agreement to cooperate.
In my view, a sentient being is nothing more than a system for optimizing nerve signals. The system builds a model of the world internally and attempts to use it to increase its "reward." In this model, there is a placeholder for another sentient being. The system can use various strategies to deal with the other sentient being. It can either destroy it, put some distance between them or work with it to increase its own reward. The agreement to cooperate is the latter. If the agreement is on equal terms then both entities benefit. If it is one sided then one side suffers and will likely quit the agreement. Obviously, the right strategy is to adopt an agreement on equal terms.
I think the above is acceptable by atheism.
"In my view, a sentient being is nothing more than a system for optimizing nerve signals."
I won't go into all the ways in which this is insufficient to explain human interactions. What I will say is that based on such a system, there is no way to come to an arrangement such as the Golden Rule. You can not perceive any other person as equal to yourself based on visual perception alone because the entire premise of the Golden Rule is an intrinsic equality between people.
Here are any number of ways we might try to evaluate another human being: skin color, eye color, hair color, facial shape, perceived abnormalities or physical defects, speech impediment, autism, visual acuity, cognitive ability or impairment, etc. When combined - and usually even individually - one derives an inequality between human beings.
Another example: Even when we consider the marketplace are we comparing equivalencies? No. We're capitalizing on differences. The entire concept of differentiation of products/services or efficiencies due to scale or natural ability ALL assume a basis of inequality rather than equality.
"In this model, there is a placeholder for another sentient being."
There is a fundamental problem with this, and I start to address it in my book: that of recognizing other sentient beings. You can't do it based on the physical senses. You can try to infer it based on actions taken, but one can not conclude sentience in another being. As proof, please tell me from observation how one determine's the sentience of a comatose person.
We better make the deal then.
Anarchy sounds good until one actually tries it and discovers that it is a lousy basis for society.
The reason why this pact is important is it increases productivity and wealth. There is really no need to compromise. You are actually gaining much more by participating than by not participating. There is no need to give up decision making power.
By the way, I think that retribution/punishment is immoral and doesn't make any sense. 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.
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.
I think anarchy exists already, for example, between states themselves. There is no state above the states. The whole idea of anarchy not working or something is statist propaganda. Anarchy is no rulers, nobody telling me what to do. I see anarchy as freedom and the lack of slavery.
The reason why people are out to mug each other is, they are engaging in predation. They are violating the pact. They should (and will) be mugged to oblivion as society collapses and they will see how that turns out for them.
A ruler is not necessary to force everyone into participating in the pact. You can tell by logic and reason that participation in the pact is vital.
"There is no need to give up decision making power."
Be specific when making claims like this. I agree that the benefits of socialization and specialization are not to be underestimated. But really think about how much "decision-making" authority one really gives up when agreeing to live in a society.
"By the way, I think that retribution/punishment is immoral and doesn't make any sense."
So you don't believe that actions have consequences that can't be overridden by whim? You say you believe in universal moral law but you deny the universe's ability to enforce its own laws? Wouldn't that make them arbitrary and ... not ... laws? You may want to take a moment to really examine what you just wrote there and its implications. Or I'd be happy to walk through some of them with you.
"Anarchy is no rulers, nobody telling me what to do."
That's propaganda. It implies that someone telling you what to do is equivalent to them forcing you to do it. It's a victimhood mentality and in reality denies both free will and free speech - not to mention the engagement of the rational mind.
Parents tell their kids what to do all the time. I'm a parent and my experience is superior to that of my children. And when I tell them to clean up their messes, not stand on the couches, and not put things into electrical sockets it isn't because I'm a tyrant over my kids, but because their infantile minds have little conceptual grasp on the greater picture. As they mature and begin to engage their reason, it becomes easier for me to explain to them why certain things are bad. And I want them to comprehend this. I'd much rather they do things because they understand the underlying moral rationale, but I also accept the reality that they have to want to understand. (Many - even adults - don't want to.)
"I think anarchy exists already."
I agree, though perhaps not in the same sense you do. Anarchy exists when some people seek to be exempted from the enforcement of the same laws they seek to inflict on others. Societies which permit anarchy - especially among those in positions of societal power - are ripe for their own destruction. I fear that America is soon going to face this crossroad.
Now, if I can get some time to respond to some of the other replies, that would be nice...
A child does not have the ability to make rational decisions. The parent has to make those decisions for the child. Society (for now) has agreed to allow children to be slaves of the parents because that is likely in the interest of the child anyway as they don't have full agency yet. However, that is a temporary situation and would be resolved in a short period of time.
As an adult, I have agency already. I don't need some filthy parasitic state to tell me what to do. Also, when is the time of my graduation? Never? WTF?
You absolutely can and for exactly the same reasons.
Life is all about learning the laws of the universe and gaining the ability to control ourselves, ie to live in harmony with those laws. But we don't start with that understanding and most people live their entire lives without mastering self-control or gaining a perfect understanding of the universe. We are all children in comparison to the total knowledge of the universe.
Can we learn from the mistakes of the past? That's a huge part of what we have in societal law! We know what has and hasn't worked historically! Just as a parent tries to warn his/her children about what works and what doesn't, what causes pain and what doesn't, etc. societal leaders (moral ones anyway) try to pass along those same things to others and frequently codify them as laws. Really, most of what laws are is that attempt to pass on to future generations the learning of those who have already "been there, done that."
"As an adult, I have agency already. I don't need some filthy parasitic state to tell me what to do."
Whether you choose to take advantage of the wisdom of others is completely up to you. You'll experience all the bumps, bruises, and broken bones along the way of refusing, but it will still be completely your choice. You still seem to be unable to differentiate between being able to choose something vs facing a consequence for that action.
There is no need to force someone under the threat of death to do something in order to teach a lesson. A historical text should do the trick. Making people do stuff against their will would likely have the opposite effect. They are only going to follow your law out of fear. They would not care about the reason why the law is there.
For example, I don't drink (alcohol) or do drugs. I don't do it because of a law. I do it for health reasons. I didn't need to try it to receive broken bones, all I needed is to learn of the research that was previously done. There was a time when alcohol was illegal in the US. I don't think that helped much. It probably made things worse. The war on drugs is an utter disaster. If I was a betting man, I would bet that removing those drug laws is going to decrease drug usage.
I am not buying your argument. I think it is a lousy excuse for the wrongs of decreeing arbitrary laws.
The single example of murder in society is enough to debunk this notion. It is proven that societies which enforce the death penalty for murderers see significantly lower rates of murder than those who only incarcerate murderers. The threat of punishment is in-and-of-itself an effective deterrent.
I can point to another. California recently passed a law saying that they weren't going to prosecute shoplifting as long as the value of the stolen goods was under $1000. Now stores are being looted by roaming mobs who simply load up entire shopping carts and leave the stores without paying.
You may not "buy my argument." It's the truth nevertheless.
It is pretty self-evident that those who steal need to return what was stolen. If they murdered, they have to pay back (to next of kin or somebody) a monetary value of the life of the murdered person. This can be calculated by figuring out the murdered person's 'profit' (income minus expenses) for the rest of their presumed life (if it was allowed to happen). This would be a very large amount, so, the perpetrator would likely be repaying for the rest of their life. Not having perpetrator repay is a great disservice to the victim.
My argument would be that repayment would be plenty punishment, maybe even harsher.
California doesn't have the right to pass laws like you mentioned. As I've said, this can be easily remedied by removing the power to decree arbitrary laws. Those theft cases need to be documented, those thieves need to be tracked down (easy to do these days with cell phones and stuff) and the thieves must be forced to pay back for stolen goods, cost of enforcement, and pay for rehab course that they would go through. If they refuse to cooperate going forward, I think we can consider them as forfeiting their social contract (and deal with them as you would deal with animals).
Trust me, my way is harsher. So, it should work even better than the death penalty / jail in terms of a deterrent.
Maybe I will take advantage of it, or maybe I will deem it foolishness. Regardless, I should be free to make that choice. I am prepared to face any consequences that result from my own choices.
However, if you force some choice on me and then it causes negative consequences for me, then you did me dirty. Such as when the state decides to have a war, drafts me and gets me killed. No thanks, I would rather experience bumps and bruises of my own making.
How so?
That is not what I was trying to say.
My understanding of anarchy is that it is total freedom. It is the lack of being forced by violence to adhere to some arbitrary rules that someone else set.
There is no victimhood mentality with this. I don't understand why you would say that.
I mean, if you force me by using a gun to do something, I would be a victim in that case. But I am going to likely fight back if I think I can win. The trouble is, you statists like to create uber powerful authoritarian organizations, so, it is rather difficult to fight against those. So, I have an ax to grind against not only those authoritarian organizations but also you guys.
Explain to me what you mean by freedom. In particular, explain to me whether or not freedom means being exempted from the natural results of one's choices or being able to determine consequences independent of choices.
That doesn't mean rules don't necessarily exist, it just means that nobody has the authority to decree them. My view is that social rules exist like scientific rules exist, such as gravity or algebra.
Obviously, no one is exempt from the consequences of their actions. How could they be exempt? It is going to happen to them whether they like it or not. What does that have to do with freedom?
Sometimes shit happens to you not only due to your own actions but also due to someone else's actions, and sometimes due to chaos in the universe. Sometimes you can predict what is going to happen with a reasonable accuracy, but sometimes it is not practical to do so.
"I think in this context, freedom is not..." (emphasis mine)
It's rather shocking to me that you put so much stock in an idea you have such difficulty explaining. (PS Negative definitions don't count.)
Let me help you. Freedom is the knowledge and will to act in complete accord with the laws of the universe and in so doing to be absolved from any negative consequences of the abrogation of those laws. Freedom means acting in a such a way that we choose the specific outcome of those actions which lies in harmony with the laws of cause and effect within the universe and which in turn benefit us.
"That doesn't mean rules don't necessarily exist, it just means that nobody has the authority to decree them..."
Do we "decree" them or merely recognize what already exists? Can humanity really create ex nihilo the laws of the universe - even moral ones? Certainly not. And as we see with those nations who attempt to adopt and enforce laws contrary to the moral laws of the universe, they ultimately fail and inflict pain and suffering along the way.
Part of being sentient is being able to choose something other than what is dictated by the law. Without the ability to make mistakes, are we really the authors of our own destiny? No. Now that doesn't mean that we can avoid the consequences of our rebellion, but hopefully that correction educates us.
Exactly my thinking. I would even go so far as to say that they decree wrong laws on purpose so that they benefit at the cost of others.
freedom
frē′dəm
noun
The condition of not being in prison or captivity.
The condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance.
The condition of not being controlled by another nation or political power; political independence.
The condition of not being subject to a despotic or oppressive power; civil liberty.
The condition of not being constrained or restricted in a specific aspect of life by a government or other power.
The condition of not being a slave.
---
I see a lot of nots there.
This might be a definition of control theory or something, not freedom.
In this case, freedom is about what others allow one to do. It has nothing to do with the laws of the universe. It has nothing to do with knowledge. It has nothing to do with consequences.
This isn't about physical reality. This is about the rules that we set for our society. The universe is the adversary. We don't care about its wishes.
The universal moral law that I hint at has nothing to do with the universe itself, it has to do with the idea that logic is the same everywhere and that social rules should be the same everywhere as well. My argument is that these rules should be derived from axiomatic things everyone would accept as true, instead of being at the whim of current fads of the day. There should not be a different set of laws in different countries.
Punishment doesn't make any sense logically, and I already stated why I think that is. If you think my reasons don't make sense, feel free to argue why they are bad.
Uh... Universal reality of necessity includes the rules of the universe such as the law of gravitational attraction, the speed of light, Euler's constant, etc. If the universe existed and humanity was derived from it, physical reality and universal law are the same thing. You're trying to assert that moral law is different than physical law. They can't be unless there is something which transcends the universe. Even then, you'd have a "god" which somehow created a universe and its laws but somehow violates those laws. That doesn't make any sense either...
"Punishment doesn't make any sense logically..."
Punishment is there to attempt to alter human behavior and for no other reason. (If it isn't to alter behavior, it's just torture.) The goal is to encourage rebels to conform back to societal norms. Without laws (and their enforcement) to discourage misbehavior and punish nonconformity, you don't have society - at all.
I don't know how to respond to that yet.
On the one hand, I don't think that's true. One cannot physically break the laws of physics even if one wanted to. However, the "universal law" that defines interactions of individuals in a society can be broken physically. One is able to kill another, however, one cannot cancel gravity.
On the other hand, logic would be used to come up with the "universal law", and logic is part of reality.
I think that having the perpetrator pay back the victim is enough to act as a punishment and alter human behavior. This also prevents frivolous punishments for violating arbitrary made up laws where no victim even exists.
"This also prevents frivolous punishments for violating arbitrary made up laws where no victim even exists."
Please go study basic legal terms. In particular, you might profit by noting the difference between a civil torte and a criminal "crime".
"The whole thing can function perfectly fine without "power" to tell other people what to do."
Again, societal contracts specify acceptable conduct and punishment for violations. Without a mechanism for identifying, adjudicating, and punishing violations, there is no real society.
Think about retail theft. If you're the shop owner, you're losing money. If you rely solely on "market forces," you'll be out of business before the day is out.
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/...
Oh wait, that sikh punisher was charged with a crime by those who were supposed to do his job. Your statism at work... punishing the virtuous while letting go the wicked.
Ok, to be fair the thief needed to be restrained and made to pay back for the damage (with money or labor). I think beating him with a stick was probably a bit of an overkill.
I disagree. If there exist a counterexample, there is probably something else going on that would explain its inadequacy.
I am guessing your plan is to use an immoral non-free-market solution to enforce morality. Wouldn't that be a bit ironic?
Please find that counterexample then.
Dreams are interesting, but it is where they intersect with Reality that matters. That's the entire reason we have the scientific method: to create a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis to determine its potential validity. UNTIL that hypothesis has been tested, it is sheer fancy.
"I am guessing..."
Yes. That is true. You might want to try something a little more concrete...
Meh....