Either there are logical, objective ethical standards or there aren't.

If there are, these standards are necessarily universal and permit of no exceptions. They apply to all people equally.

Government, at its most basic, is a group of people who maintain "we can hit you but you can't hit us." That is not a logical, objective moral principle. That is illogical, inconsistent and unequal.

If logical, objective ethical standards exist, government, as such. cannot be permitted.

If no logical, objective ethical standards exist, then any assertion that the government is justified on the grounds that it provides some good, or that it prevents some evil, is absurd, foolish, baseless, nonsensical and fraudulent, since there is no logical basis for deciding what is "good" and what is "evil", since there is no objective basis on which to form a preference for one over the other, since the very concepts of "good" and "evil" are meaningless.

Either way, no government can be permitted, no government can be justified.

6/8/2008 6:09:22 PM

who was it that said "a democracy would only work when based on christian principles"

well, looks like christianity is out the door.... so i guess monarchy is next for us unless we plunge into anarchy first

6/8/2008 6:16:57 PM

^ Not sure who that was, but they've obviously never been to India.

6/8/2008 6:25:33 PM

so tell me, is the modern day liberals mantra:

1) counter anything that has to do with christianity
2) be anti-american and pro socialist in every way

?

6/8/2008 6:44:34 PM

How the fuck would I know what the liberals mantra is?

6/8/2008 6:46:47 PM

good point. with you're pea sized brain, you'll need all the government you can get to take care of you.

6/8/2008 6:47:43 PM

the government should exist to:

1. Defend us.

2. Regulate monopolies while protecting intellectual capital.

3. Support infrastructure.

After that - there is no need for the helping hand of someone else to live our lives.

6/8/2008 6:49:24 PM

Justifications: The bigger weapon has domain.

Reasons for Existing: Complacency, wanton ignorance, and fear of responsibility.

[Edited on June 8, 2008 at 7:12 PM. Reason : \/ i like the format]

6/8/2008 6:57:04 PM

Justifications: none

Reason for existing: nature abhors a vacumn

6/8/2008 7:05:54 PM

Does everyone subscribe to these same principles, and respect the rights of property, life, and liberty in your idyllic situation?

How are all you guys in the same camp? Rat's babbling some incoherent nonsense about Christianity and democracy, though he is a special case, TreeTwista and some of the other guys seem like they mostly don't want to pay for shit for other people, and Megaloman and a few others seem both to not trust other people to the extreme and to think that everyone follows the same principles as they do at the same time.

6/8/2008 7:14:48 PM

Quote :

"the government should exist to: 1. Defend us. 2. Regulate monopolies while protecting intellectual capital. 3. Support infrastructure. "

The only basis on which you can argue that these need to be provided by government is if these are objectively good things to have. Yet if anything can be objectively good, then government must be objectively evil. You've failed to address the contradiction inherent in your point of view. Please reread the first post.

PS, yes, it's really just that simple. It's taken priests and princes and court intellectuals thousands of years to obfuscate things as thoroughly as they've become.

Quote :

"Megaloman and a few others seem both to not trust other people to the extreme and to think that everyone follows the same principles as they do at the same time."

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If anything, I'm way too trusting. The fact that I don't trust anybody to wield fundamentally evil powers in no ways interferes with my ability to trust most people most of the time in everyday life.

Also, though my ethics are a lot more ideological than most people's, the practical implications are basically the same: Don't kill, don't rape, don't steal, etc... These are principles, to quote the brothers McManus, "which every man, of every faith can embrace."

The key difference between me and virtually everyone else is that I maintain that these principles apply to all. Certain people don't get a magical free pass to violate them at will.

6/8/2008 7:32:10 PM

But people do violate them, now, in the face of the very real threat of imprisonment and death, or at the very least an ass-beating by a cop who's irritated that the guy tried to hit him to get away. What's the incentive NOT to break these very simple rules of yours in the absence of authority? Barring the "I'll shoot the guy" argument, because you seem to be a basically decent person, so you operate on an entirely different set of rules than someone who would be looking to do you harm in whatever way.

6/8/2008 7:35:37 PM

Quote :

"What's the incentive NOT to break these very simple rules of yours in the absence of authority?"

Do you break these rules? Do you know anyone who does routinely in a non-trivial way?

The worst person I know is a klepto who steals random bullshit, but who's basically a complete pussy.

Sure there are a few violent criminals out there, but (in the absence of perverse government incentives that multiply their numbers) they are so hopelessly outnumbered by ethical, productive people that self-defense and voluntary defense arrangements are more than suitable to keep them at bay, induce them to suppress their criminal tendencies, or eliminate them entirely.

Now, assuming I did believe humans to universally be depraved, fallen, corrupt creatures? Well, then what government (of humans) could be trusted to keep them in line without proving even worse?

[Edited on June 8, 2008 at 7:57 PM. Reason : ']

6/8/2008 7:55:06 PM

Amateur philosophy is a fun way to hide a total lack of practicality, experience, evidence, and sense.

6/8/2008 11:15:33 PM

Quote :

"Government, at its most basic, is a group of people who maintain "we can hit you but you can't hit us.""

Is it?

6/8/2008 11:22:54 PM

Lighten up GOP, this is what the internet is for. Besides porn and Wikipedia.

I surely do know people who do that sort of thing fairly regularly. I went to high school with them. They steal cars and other things, engage in date-rape and domestic violence, sell and deal drugs, including meth and coke, and beat people up. You don't know anyone who does any of this?

I don't think that violent criminals are numerically a large portion of the population, but neither are the sort of people who take time and effort to deliberately track them down. Most people do not vigorously assert their rights or their will on others (see: last 4000 years of human history). Leaving that aside, legal disputes need to be mediated, those accused of crimes need impartial trials, or as close as we can get, as well as completing objectives for the public good that may not benefit any individual enough to cause them to demand it. I've never bought into anarchy as a realistic world system, because I frankly believe it is a part of human nature to organize, and that there is a practical need for some entity to make and enforce laws. I do think we should strive to keep as much individual freedom as is possible, but to say that no government at all is a good idea just doesn't compute to me. But if you're committed to the idea at this point, I really doubt much I can say is going to change your mind anymore than you're going to change mine by claiming that any infringement on anyone's liberty is totally unacceptable. Check out The Leviathan. I don't buy all or even most of his ideas, but his reasoning against anarchy is pretty strong.

[Edited on June 8, 2008 at 11:37 PM. Reason : Remembered something else.]

6/8/2008 11:34:29 PM

Quote :

"Is it?"

Well I do see a definite need for gov't...just not as much as we have now --or the more we will get with Obama.

Gov't is force...sanctioned force to be used only in the protection of our rights. Gov't has but a few basic functions.

1) Police force to protect the internal populace from violence and fraud.

2) Military force to protect the population from external attack/invasion.

3) Court & Judicial force to protect property and contracts.


Many other things we allow gov't to do would be a crime if we did it individually. i.e. take money/labor away from one person and give it to another in the name of social fairness.

6/8/2008 11:39:00 PM

I think the government should exist to:

Protect us from the initiation of force or fraud, whether it be the thieves in our backyards or a foreign threat of war.

That's it.

6/8/2008 11:56:59 PM

Quote :

"Amateur philosophy is a fun way to hide a total lack of practicality, experience, evidence, and sense. "

/

6/9/2008 1:37:48 AM

Let's take up the case, here.

Let's assume government is objectively evil from the outset. (It does, after all, infringe upon an absolute condition of liberty, so we'll assume that as a minor evil.)

However, in the complete absence of a government, all of your rights are in constant peril. Everyone is free to do what they want, which necessarily involves some uncomfortable overlap.

Enter a "social contract." We agree to give up some small portion of our liberties for the agreement that everyone else will do the same, and cede the monopoly on force to a single entity (the government) to maintain this contract.

Therefore, it is assumed the gain we achieve in securing our rights from constant threat is outweighed from the liberty we surrender. Therefore, government is an evil, but the absence of a government to protect our rights is a greater evil.

6/9/2008 1:44:14 AM

that's kind of the Barry Goldwater school of thought, which I also subscribe to.

The legitimate functions of government are conducive to maximizing freedom.

"Maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering justice, removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods--the exercise of these powers makes it possible for men to follow their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom."


I happen to believe that the U.S. Constitution lays out a pretty good plan for achieving these ends, and it is in large part an instrument for restricting the power of the U.S. government in order to keep it in the "sweet spot" of allowing it provisions for the levying of judicious governance and restriction to maximize liberty, but not so much as to curtail liberty.

Unfortunately, we've long since stopped paying anything more than a degree of lip service to the Constitution, other than invoking its supposed authority on occasion when it is convenient to the whims of a cause.


I am not so much the strictest sort of constitutionalist as much as I am at least a moderate libertarian. I believe that the Constitution needs to be amended in a few regards in order to better serve our society in current times, which would make actually operating within its limitations more practical. However, since the process for amending is wonderfully cumbersome, we've taken it upon ourselves to simply ignore it, and somehow, no one has stepped up to prevent these transgressions. However, I do believe that adherence to our Constitution would go a long way towards preserving liberty.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 2:13 AM. Reason : VOTE DUKE IN '24]

6/9/2008 2:12:40 AM

idk imo you are making the constitution to be more important than it is or something...not trying to be an asshole but i get that "damn man this guy is hard up for the constitution" vibe(weird one) when i read posts like that...like a "damn..this guy REALLY cares about the constitution"...idk maybe thats a good thing and i'm cynical

6/9/2008 2:18:04 AM

I'll let someone else respond to that. It's hard to type with your hand on your forehead.

6/9/2008 2:24:37 AM

So we don't continue to muck up the UN thread.

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=528858

Quote :

"I really continue to be confused by your faith in the essentially good nature of business, when compared to your total lack of faith in government."

I don't have any faith in any individual business. However, I feel that I have a hell of a lot better bargaining position vis a vis a company that has to convince me to voluntarily exchange my wealth for its products or services, vs. a government that can simply take as much of my wealth as it unilaterally deems fit and only has to decide afterwards what services it's going to provide me and how well. Do you see how the company has an incentive to make it worth my while do do business with them? Do you see how a government has no such incentive?

Quote :

"I frankly believe it is a part of human nature to organize"

If you think that I don't, then I believe you're still gravely misunderstanding anarchism.

Quote :

"there is a practical need for some entity to make and enforce laws."

Replace, "make and enforce" with "recognize and uphold" and we are in agreement. Before widespread legislation, the common law courts of England closely approximated this ideal. They built up a body of customary law based not on the principle of obedience to the arbitrary will of some human authority, but upon the principle that legal reasoning could devine pre-existing principles of justice and apply them to practical cases. In 1776, Adam Smith, writing in The Wealth of Nations explained how competition between the various court of England, insured the speed, efficiency, impartiality and justice of these courts.

Quote :

"The fees of court seem originally to have been the principal support of the different courts of justice in England. Each court endeavoured to draw to itself as much business as it could, and was, upon that account, willing to take cognizance of many suits which were not originally intended to fall under its jurisdiction. The court of king’s bench instituted for the trial of criminal causes only, took cognizance of civil suits; the plaintiff pretending that the defendant, in not doing him justice, had been guilty of some trespass or misdemeanor. The court of exchequer, instituted for the levying of the king’s revenue, and for enforcing the payment of such debts only as were due to the king, took cognizance of all other contract debts; the plaintiff alleging that he could not pay the king, because the defendant would not pay him. In consequence of such fictions it came, in many case, to depend altogether upon the parties before what court they would chuse to have their cause tried; and each court endeavoured, by superior dispatch and impartiality, to draw to itself as many causes as it could. The present admirable constitution of the courts of justice in England was, perhaps, originally in a great measure, formed by this emulation, which anciently took place between their respective judges; each judge endeavouring to give, in his own court, the speediest and most effectual remedy, which the law would admit, for every sort of injustice."

There is no reason that government couldn't simply be dispensed with so that a similar system of competing courts of customary law could operate freely on the market.

6/9/2008 2:41:53 AM

Quote :

"Check out The Leviathan."

Ah yes, Hobbes. The Hobbesian thesis is that peaceful cooperation without the state is impossible and that such a "state of nature" necessarily results in a general "warre of all against all."

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html

This thesis, as stated by Hobbes, has two parts. First, that it is good for all to have peace. Second, that is better still for each to invade the property of the others and that, therefore, all will be at war.

Game theorists have refined this thesis further with the creation of a number of dilemmas showing that there are circumstances under which collectively rational results will not be achieved by individual, rational actors.

Thus, we have the prisoner's dilemma. Two prisoners, A and B, are given the opportunity to rat each other out. If both stay silent, each gets six month in prison. If both talk, each serves five years. If one talks and the other doesn't, the one who doesn't gets ten years while the one who does gets off scott free. The collectively rational approach is to not talk. Individually, however, the rational thing to do is to rat out the other, since it offers the possibility of getting off completely, while remaining silent carries with it the risk of serving ten years. Each, therefore will serve 5 years by behaving rationally instead of being able to reduce that to 6 months through cooperation.

We have the dilemma of tort. Life, limb and property are vulnerable. If the players respect each other's bodily integrity and property then all are well off. If one trespasses while the others respect, the trespasser is better off still, while the others are worse off. If all take expensive precautions against being trespassed against, then all will be worse off than if all respected, however, this is the best that can be hoped for from rational, individual actors.

We have the dilemma of teamwork. Members of a team can choose between working and shirking. If all work, then all are well off. However, as long as enough work, each member is better off individually shirking. Choosing to work, on the other hand, necessarily leads to exploitation by the shirkers. The equilibrium solution is that all shirk.

These dilemmas and other can be solved by explicit or implicit contract. Therefore, they all hinge on the conclusions we can draw from the dilemma of contract. The dilemma of contract is the master dilemma from which these others derive.

The dilemma of contract goes as follows. An exchange of promises is made. If the first performer fulfills his end of the bargain, a rational second performer will default, since he has already received the benefit and has nothing to gain from faithfully performing his end of the bargain. This, however, is common knowledge, and the first party would know that his performance would not be requited. Therefore, the first party would default as well. The result, therefore, of any contract, made in a state of nature, is no contract at all.

Peaceful cooperation between individuals and the fulfilment of their contracts can only be secured, according to Hobbes, by the existence of an external power by which all parties are "overawed" and which can compel harmonious and honest dealings by overwhelming force. For this reason, states are formed among men.

There are, however, a number of paradoxes inherent in this point of view. How can a social contract arise within a stateless society if the contract dilemma prevents the creation of binding contracts in the absence of a state? How can the state arise from anarchy if it is thus its own necessary antecedent? (De Jasay - against politics)

Furthermore. If it is true that the enforcement of a contract requires compulsion from some agency not party to it, how can individuals, having entered into a "social-contract" with some agents charged with enforcing peace and harmony, hold the agents to their end of the social contract without resorting to a "meta-state", superior to both the state and its citizens, for enforcement. This would seem to lead to an infinite regress towards higher and higher levels of necessary meta-enforcement. In other words, who governs the government?

Furthermore, isn't it likely that these agents to which we entrust the final say in the settlement of our social dilemmas are themselves rational entities, with their own interests that can sway them from the impartiality that their responsibility requires? What evidence is there, a priori or empirical, to indicate that their self-interest leads them to seek fair and objective solutions to our dilemmas? Might their own self-interest lead them, rather, to use their discretionary power to exploit their subjects for the achievement of some personal end, or to exploit one group for the benefit of another? The equilibrium strategy of the subject population would be, in this case, not to resist but to obey, adjust and profit from the opportunities for coalition building with the rulers at the expense of the rest of society.

We can get another perspective on this paradox by looking at the public goods dilemma. Stated simply, this boils down to the following: If a good is too costly or difficult to reserve exclusively to those who pay for it, and restrict from those who do not, then it will be rational to try not to pay for it, whilst still deriving as much benefit from it as possible. The idea, then, is that authority is required to force everyone to pay for the public good, so that everyone can derive the benefit. An example would be the television tax in Britain, where the government charges a license fee on each television to fund public broadcasting that is then pumped out on the airwaves for everyone to watch. If this funding model operated without the authority of government to compel payment, it would not be in anyone's best interest to pay, but simply to enjoy the free television broadcasts paid for by others.

Leslie Green argues in The Authority of the State (Oxford: Clarendon 1990) that this authority to provide public goods is itself a public good, and that it is more difficult to organize such authority than it is simply provide lower order public goods outright (for example, as in the specific case of television broadcasts, how they're provided in America through advertising revenue.)

For the sake of argument, let's discard the assumption that a state is necessary to enforce contracts, and look at the situation where a contract is to be enforced by the opposing wills of those party to it.

If A and B enter into an agreement, and the contract dilemma, as already stated, is valid, then it is obvious that, if A performs his obligations under the contract, B, if rational, will default. However, there are a number of measures that A can undertake to force performance on B's part and make sure B doesn't default. For free contract to be a stable equilibrium, the marginal cost of enforcement, incurred by A, must be lower than the marginal benefit of B's performance to A. Furthermore, the cost of enforcement threatened against B, must be greater than the marginal benefit to B of defaulting. Since the marginal benefit to A of B's performance is the net gain he expects from successful fulfilment of the contract, while the marginal benefit to B of default is the gross value of the whole contract, it would seem, at first glance, that default must still have the upper hand as opposed to successful performance.

However, if we factor the possibility of future contracts into the picture, the situation changes markedly. A will now be willing to spend more than he expects to gain from the present contract in order to enforce it, if he thinks that by so doing he will be able to gain future benefit from the successful fulfilment of additional contracts with B. B, for his part, will be faced not only with a much greater threat of enforcement from A, but also higher opportunity costs for default; namely the loss of any benefits future contracts with A might bring.

Iteration of the contract dilemma produces a completely different equilibrium solution. To quote De Jasay...

Quote :

"Anyone who has a name, lives in a place, does something for a living - That is, anyone tied into the fabric of society - would think twice before treating mutual promises as the single-play prisoner's dilemma says he must. He would have to look very carefully at all his affairs and tie up all his lose ends before defaulting on a contract, as if it were the last one he will ever enter. Feeling tempted, he would have to consider Hobbes famous and unHobbesian answer to the rather Hobbesian Foole, who thinks that reason may dictate breach of promise and default. He therefore that breaketh his Covenant, and consequently declareth that he thinks he may with reason do so, cannot be received into any society, that unite themselves for Peace and Defense, but by the errour of them that receive him; nor when he is received, be retayned in it, without seeing the danger of their errour."

Further discussion on the effects of iteration to the similar prisoners dilemma can be found in the eponymous Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilemma

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 2:55 AM. Reason : clarity]

6/9/2008 2:44:51 AM

fuck I'm not reading all that.


Justify your existence, and then I'll get back to you about government.

6/9/2008 3:40:31 AM

when I can no longer afford beer because the cost of barley and hops goes through the roof government is no longer justified.

until then I'm ok with it.

also Christianity was heavily influenced by Greek teachings as was democracy. I think Rat is looking at democracy as a straight line from the church to democracy rather than them stemming from similar teachings that existed before them both.

6/9/2008 8:31:13 AM

if you want to sit around guessing what i think you can.. but here i'll just tell you

i think democracies were created b/c they only work when the people are by and large christian believers. other religions have shown they need a monarchy or a socialist republic to control them or they'll get out of hand and kill each other.

this nation has shown that 1000's of religions can live together peacefully. even the growth of islam and others hasn't shown any violent results. our only source of violence has been pure racial aka riots aka slavery roots, which we still pay for. no reason to disban the government yet. sheesh.

democracy has worked fanstastic for 200 years and it's finally slipping b/c the population is turning away from christianity.

i never said one came from the other or whatever you were trying to say.

6/9/2008 9:22:55 AM

Quote :

"Gov't is force...sanctioned force to be used only in the protection of our rights."

How did you acquire the right and the authority to "sanction" the use of force against me? I've never threatened your rights.

Quote :

"Many other things we allow gov't to do would be a crime if we did it individually. i.e. take money/labor away from one person and give it to another in the name of social fairness."

So it wouldn't be a crime if an individual simply did the same things a government is supposed to do, namely holding a gun to my head and demanding that I contribute money for his protection? Wouldn't that be a crime?

Quote :

"I think the government should exist to: Protect us from the initiation of force or fraud"

How, pray tell, would the government accomplish that without itself initiating force to a) Collect tax money to fund itself and b) prevent competitors from providing the same services better and cheaper.

Quote :

"Therefore, it is assumed the gain we achieve in securing our rights from constant threat is outweighed from the liberty we surrender."

A utilitarian justification of evil is going to require more than assumptions. It's going to require proof that utilitarianism is a valid moral principle and proof that the cost benefit analysis works out favorable in this case, neither of which I think is possible.

6/9/2008 9:57:03 AM

HAY GUYS, SORRY I'M LATE

6/9/2008 10:19:43 AM

Why would you want to live in a governmental system where one person may harm another, with no consequences except for the urge of his victim to retaliate?

6/9/2008 2:57:05 PM

Don't waste your time with this regression argument.

Quote :

"Coherentism denies the validity of the regression argument. The regression argument makes the assumption that the justification for a proposition takes the form of another proposition: P" justifies P', which in turn justifies P. For coherentism, justification is a holistic process. P is not justified as a part of some inferential chain of reasoning, but because it coheres with some system of which it forms a part. Usually the system is taken to be the complete set of beliefs of the individual or group, that is, their theory of the world. It is necessary for coherentism to explain in some detail what it means for a system to be coherent. At the least, coherence must include logical consistency. It also usually requires some degree of integration of the various components of the system. A system that contains more than one unrelated explanation of the same phenomenon is not as coherent as one that uses only one explanation, all other things being equal. Conversely, a theory that explains divergent phenomena using unrelated explanations is not as coherent as one that uses only one explanation for those divergent phenomena. These requirements are variations on Occam's razor. The same points can be made more formally using Bayesian statistics. Finally, the greater the number of phenomena explained by the system, the greater its coherence. "

You won't get anywhere with it because it's doomed from the beginning.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 3:16 PM. Reason : -]

6/9/2008 3:12:30 PM

Quote :

"Why would you want to live in a governmental system where one person may harm another, with no consequences except for the urge of his victim to retaliate?"

It's not clear from your post, but I guess you're trying to point out some sort of flaw with anarchism?

If that's the case, I guess I would ask you why you want to live in a system where some people are permitted to harm others, with no consequences period.

Furthermore, it is a mistake to assume that retaliation is the only disincentive to harm others.

Ostracism and social pressure are a lot more important. Statists make a huge deal out of "positive externalities", situations where someone has to bear costs while the benefits accrue to someone else. They allege that when this happens, these goods will be under-supplied by the market because people don't have an incentive to help provide them. They can simply "free ride" off of the contributions of others. In practice, these concerns are completely overblown. People spend a great deal of time and money on personal hygiene, which is almost entirely for the benefit of others. Social pressure internalizes these externalities when they're important enough. Another example, what's your incentive to tip? If you don't, and you're not planning on coming back to the restaurant, it would seem to be in your best interest to stiff your server and "free ride" on the service that others pay for. However, social pressure is enough to prevent most people from doing this, although, admittedly, not those people.

An example of ostracism used punitively to discourage crime already exists in the form of credit monitoring bureaus and credit ratings. The government used to maintain debtors' prisons to punish people who defaulted on small debts. Eventually, people realized that this was retarded, and the system was completely privatized. If you get a credit card and max it out, then refuse to pay it back, the cops aren't going to come after you, nor are private mercenaries. However, your delinquency is going to count as a black mark against you and interfere with getting more credit, buying a car, getting a job, or even renting an apartment, until you make good. Though this is punitive, it's not retaliation. A landlords isn't retaliating against you for defaulting on a past creditor by denying you an apartment. He's got no horse in that race. However, if you give him reason to suspect that you're going to be an untrustworthy tenant, then he's going to be reluctant to do business with you.

Another example is provided by the American Arbitration Association, the largest private court system in the country. When it was founded in the 1920s, private arbitration was not legally binding and the statist courts would not enforce AAA rulings. However, the AAA was able to successfully secure compliance with its decisions by threatening to revoke arbitration privileges for customers who, after submitting to the terms of arbitration, refused to abide by the final ruling. This threat alone was enough to enforce decisions, since the alternatives to arbitration, pariah status, open violence or the slow, inefficient, arbitrary, and expensive public courts, were all more costly than even losing a decision before the AAA.

Anarchism isn't just lawlessness and chaos, it isn't just the strong pushing the weak around, it's an orderly society where principles of just and fair conduct are upheld on the basis of "play by the rules or be excluded from the game." Violence would only be required to deal with the occasional psychopath or would-be statist.

6/9/2008 6:39:40 PM

Quote :

"A utilitarian justification of evil is going to require more than assumptions. It's going to require proof that utilitarianism is a valid moral principle and proof that the cost benefit analysis works out favorable in this case, neither of which I think is possible."

You neglect the fact that behind that utilitarian calculus is the assumption of the consent of the governed - i.e., the utilitarian decision is made by those consenting to be governed. Thus, the moral foundation of government is not in the utilitarian argument, but in the consent of the governed.

6/9/2008 7:09:24 PM

Quote :

"i think democracies were created b/c they only work when the people are by and large christian believers. other religions have shown they need a monarchy or a socialist republic to control them or they'll get out of hand and kill each other."

Im sorry but this is wrong.

this is the top ten largest Christian populations by country.

1 United States 189,983,000
2 Brazil 170,405,000
3 Mexico 96,614,000
4 China 86,801,000
5 Philippines 72,225,000
6 Germany 60,712,000
7 Nigeria 54,012,000
8 Italy 47,704,000
9 France 45,505,000
10 Congo, Democratic Republic of 42,283,000

also the fact that Christianity needed monarchy's to control it for 1500 years doesn't work out too well either. Western moral principles created by the Greeks and adopted by the Christian religion however are useful when running a government. I never understood why communist dictatorships shunned religion when its one of the most useful ways to control large groups of people around.

6/9/2008 8:07:58 PM

Quote :

"Ostracism and social pressure are a lot more important"

I don't want to rely on social pressure alone when I walk home from DH Hill at midnight in the dark and am scared to death of being raped or murdered.

6/9/2008 8:09:19 PM

^ Absolutely, you should be allowed to carry a gun or other weapon to defend yourself. Furthermore, the campus should be secured by an efficient, friendly and private security team that you can turn to for additional protection.

The ideal solution, however, if for you not to need protection to begin with. We are never going to achieve exactly that, but I believe an anarchist society more closely approximates the ideal than any statist one ever could. This is true even if we only look at private crime and neglect the chance of being violently aggressed against by our own government.

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=527965&page=2

Quote :

"Most of the crime that you and I need protection from is the result of generations of bad government policy. Government systematically punishes, through progressive taxation, those people who engage in honest, productive enterprise. Meanwhile, broken families, laziness, short-sightedness, irresponsibility, indulgence and a sense of entitlement are all subsidized by a vast system of government handouts. It is the permanent, dependent underclass thus created, that threatens the safety and property of productive citizens, not other productive citizens."

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=528022

Quote :

"If police do a good job of preventing, deterring and punishing crime they put themselves out of a job. Their incentive is to focus on ineffectual bullshit that justifies large budgets and large staffs but still leaves private criminals free to terrorize the populace, so that they'll clamor for even more ineffectual and overbearing police measures."

Quote :

"As previously stated, criminals tend to have very high rates of time preference, they are very present-oriented. The prospect of facing an armed victim, being an immediate threat, is a potent deterrent to crime. In comparison, the remote statistical chance of being arrested at some indeterminate point in the future and the even less likely chance of being convicted and sent to prison even farther in the future, is going to have a vanishingly small deterrent value on the target population. Thus, disarming citizens and ramping up police efforts against crime is only going to accelerate the downward spiral."

DrSteveChaos

Quote :

"Thus, the moral foundation of government is not in the utilitarian argument, but in the consent of the governed."

That's all well and good until some asshole like me comes along who doesn't quite feel like consenting. Then what?

Do you throw me in a government rape room, where I spend a number of years being cornholed by a 300lb, heavily tattooed southern Mexican named Angel?

How is it consent if that's the alternative?

6/9/2008 8:49:04 PM

"Refusing to retaliate against an aggressor is to sanction his aggression -- and to welcome more of it. Yet, if he is living in a society of other men, it is not enough that an individual determine in his own mind that his use of force is retaliatory. Since whether an act of force is initiatory or retaliatory is not self-evident, and since a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society, any man who engages in force that has not been proved by objective means to be retaliatory must be considered a threat. This is the deepest reason why the use of retaliatory force must be delegated to the government: an act of retaliation that isn't first proved to be an act of retaliation is indistinguishable from an act of aggression -- and must be treated as such.

What, then, are "objective means"? To determine that an instance of force is retaliatory, men must know what the act of force was, the general standard by which guilt is to be determined, and what evidence was used to meet that standard in a particular case. Every member of society must have access to this information. And, of course, each of these elements must be objective (the laws, standards of evidence, and the evaluation of whether the evidence in question meets that standard). By its nature, then, objectivity in retaliation cannot be achieved without a government (assuming we are speaking here of a society of men and not individuals or isolated tribes). If an individual uses force, by that very fact he is an objective threat to other members of society and may properly be restrained, even if he was responding to another man's aggression. He has no grounds for claiming his rights are being violated.

Imagine you are walking down the street and a man walks up and punches the person next to you in the face. The anarchist would argue that if you use force to restrain that person, you are initiating force if it turns out that the man he punched hit him first. Yet that is pure intrinsicism. It is non-objective in the same way that the audience's applause was non-objective. He may be retaliating but you don't know it.

The point is not that individuals are unable to make objective determinations of what constitutes retaliatory force -- it's that objectivity demands they prove it to every other member of society."

This is why I advocate laissez-faire capitalism, not anarchy.

6/9/2008 11:21:34 PM

Quote :

"How did you acquire the right and the authority to "sanction" the use of force against me? I've never threatened your rights. "

Our friend Bastiat explains for you....

Quote :

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be. "

6/10/2008 12:02:33 AM

Quote :

"with you're pea sized brain"

I just stopped in to point and laugh at this idiocy. There are at least 2 mistakes here. One is your egregious misuse of an apostrophe and use of the wrong "your" while trying to insult a much more intelligent person's intelligence. Another is an attempt to argue with Gamecat, who is by far one of the most intelligent users on this forum, probably ever. I suppose I could argue that the third mistake you're making is trying to hold an intelligent debate with an obviously "pea sized brain" yourself, but I won't go that far, because it wouldn't be fair, and I don't know you.

I suppose it would only be right for me to respond to the OP here, so let me say that I vaguely agree with Megaloman. His argument is based on the premises he laid out, and though I don't agree that all of his premises are sound, his conclusion fits with my own thinking for some of the same and some different reasons.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 12:40 AM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 12:38:04 AM

Quote :

"Do you throw me in a government rape room, where I spend a number of years being cornholed by a 300lb, heavily tattooed southern Mexican named Angel?"

Unnecessarily and hilariously graphic.

6/10/2008 1:56:18 AM

Quote :

"Since whether an act of force is initiatory or retaliatory is not self-evident, and since a man who initiates force is by that fact a threat to society, any man who engages in force that has not been proved by objective means to be retaliatory must be considered a threat."

Some force is self-evidently initiatory. If a man tells me "your money or your life" and produces a weapon to back up the threat, that's self-evidently initiatory. I'm going to take action to defend myself when defense is required, rather than wait for it to be "proved by objective means" that I'm justified in doing so. There'll be plenty of time to sort things like that out later. If his next of kin think I didn't have cause to defend myself, they're welcome to take me to court.

Quote :

"The point is not that individuals are unable to make objective determinations of what constitutes retaliatory force -- it's that objectivity demands they prove it to every other member of society."

I support a free-market system of private, competing courts to provide just that service.

You still haven't explained how your ideal government would itself avoid initiating force.

Quote :

"Our friend Bastiat explains for you...."

The Bastiat quote your provided tends rather to argue my point than yours.

Quote :

"Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."

I ask again. I have never violated your rights. I have no desire to violate your rights. How is it legitimate for you to violate my rights in order to force me to support a "common force" that I do not wish to support, that I believe is contrary to my interests, and that I believe to be the negation of that which it claims to protect?

6/10/2008 5:20:17 AM

A just principle of law is that every man is considered innocent until he's proven guilty.

Another such is that every man is entitled to a speedy trial.

Not to mention the punishment prescribed by law will surely vary from what you might prefer to dish out.

How can you ensure that a system of competing courts will yield objectivity in retaliation? I think this cannot be achieved without a government.

Quote :

"Some force is self-evidently initiatory. "

True, some force is, and you should be able to defend yourself from further harm when being attacked by an aggressor that threatens your life. This does not mean a government is an improper socio-political system.

6/10/2008 8:51:33 AM

Quote :

"How can you ensure that a system of competing courts will yield objectivity in retaliation? I think this cannot be achieved without a government."

Yes 'cause government does such a bang up job on this count.

Ok, seriously. Let's say someone tries to stick me up, and instead of reaching for my wallet, I reach for a gun and shoot him dead. Let's say that his next of kin decide that I was the aggressor, because their Larry would never harm or threaten to harm another. They could take their case to any court they want, since, presumably, they're not interested in what I think. If there exists a court that would hand out the ruling of their choice (unlikely, for reasons I will get to) they can simply purchase it. For this very reason a standard will probably arise that it requires the agreement of two courts to make a ruling binding. I could simply appeal the ruling in a court that I know would exonerate me, and then we'd be back to square one. We'd either have to find a court whose reputation for objectivity and adherence to commonly accepted standards of justice made it appealing to both of us, or our respective courts would have to negotiate a suitable court of final appeal to which to present their respective findings. For this reason, paying for a court biased in one's favor would be a complete waste of money, since we'd eventually end up in a court with a reputation for impartiality and justice anyway. These courts, for their part, would strive to maintain their reputation, because even the slightest inkling of a corruption scandal would be severely damaging to their continued ability to find customers and hence, their bottom line.

If I was found guilty of unjustifiable homicide, I would have a huge judgment rendered against me, very similar to the wrongful death civil penalties that are currently levied after a successful lawsuit. It may seem callous to award monetary restitution for something that can clearly never be set right by material compensation. However, something like a murder cannot be set right by any means and there is already an established precedent for the nature and amount of wrongful death awards. This would be entered against me as a debt with the credit bureaus and would result in me being effectively cast out of civilized society until and unless I somehow managed to pay it off. Most importantly, I would be cut off from security and legal protection, leaving me vulnerable to the wrath of my victims and their survivors. If this posed a serious threat, and I still wished to reform myself, I could check myself into a free-market prison, where I'd pay a portion of my income to be able to work off my debt in relative peace and security. Instead of being hellish institutions of torture and rape supported by government plunder, these market prisons would be safe and comfortable, because prisoners would be free to leave and they'd have to compete with each other for paying inmates. They'd likely help prisoners to continue their education, giving them more earning power and allowing them to pay off their debts sooner and return to peaceful society.

On the other hand, if this court system established my innocence, and determined that I acted only in self-defense, I would have a solid basis for a counter claim against the plaintiff, for wasting my time and money in court, lost wages etc...

Suppose a less contentious situation exists. Maybe a business partner and I have a good-faith disagreement over what, exactly, the terms of a contract require. Presumably, we've had the good sense to stipulate in the contract itself which mutually acceptable court is to settle any disputes arising over the contract, which courts are to hear any appeals, and which codes of law are to be used in making a determination in our case. Once we start climbing our pre-specified appeals ladder, one court should be enough, since we've picked a court known for objectivity and that is agreeable to both of us. It would soon be obvious who was in the right and who was in the wrong, or, at least, who could hope to win. The appeals would most likely be unnecessary.

Why would this tend to result in objective, natural law?

Because people are relatively willing to pay for the defense of their rights, their liberty, their property, their persons. They are much less willing to pay to violate the rights of others.

Right now, under government (so-called), the "War on Drugs" is politically feasible because its proponents can simply offload the costs onto the taxpayers, they don't have to bear them directly.

Faced with the choice of spending, oh, I don't know, $100/year (Gold equivalent, or whatever) to subscribe to a security protection plan and a court access plan to protect their rights vs. spending vastly more (probably $thousands) on a firm that aggressively policed its subscribers for any signs of drug use, most people would probably choose the bare-bones plan.

It wouldn't be feasible for a security firm to police non-subscribes for arbitrarily prohibited behaviors, since they would likely resist and hire their own security to protect them from what would soon become widely regarded as rogue firm.

Likewise, anyone could formulate their own legal code and offer it for sale to lawyers and courts to be used in drafting contracts or settling disputes. However, the most useful courts to customers would be the ones that offered the most extensive networks of reciprocity agreements with other courts, that would allow them to do business with the widest number of other people within a legal framework. The way for a court to get the widest reciprocity from others would be to uphold the simplest and most widely recognized legal principles.

The hypothetical prohibitionist court previously postulated would not likely enjoy much reciprocity with others. In addition to paying substantially more than people who are willing to accept a more libertarian legal environment, its customers would be largely cut off from the world around them. Such a court would occupy a niche in the market as limited as the niche available to a phone company that couldn't offer its customers the ability to talk to the customers of other phone companies.

Basically, if crazy has to pay its own way, it becomes a lot less attractive, even to crazy people, than rationality.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ']

6/10/2008 11:27:01 AM

You don't think it's worth the money to the parent of someone you shot dead, assuming they can afford it, to pay to punish you as much as possible? Let me add a couple of lines of extra context to your hypothetical NRA situation.

Junior (who stuck you up) has a drug problem. It's not hard to get the drugs, because Appalachia demonstrates pretty clearly that any idiot, no matter how uneducated or inbred, can make meth on an impressive scale pretty easily. He needs that fix, and can't borrow the money anymore. This is where you meet him, and blast him in the face, chest, or other vital area.

Junior's parents are likely to spend a LOT of money on your pay-for-judgment court, even if they won't necessarily win, because they're pissed you shot their poor, misguided Larry Jr. instead of handing him your 30 bucks. If they have more than you, they can buy more judgments, so you're found guilty, even though you're justified for having shot the guy who threatened your life, and then you lose your stuff and you're vulnerable to the revenge you describe. Although, really, it's a lot cheaper if they're into revenge to show up in the middle of the night and anonymously set your stuff on fire, especially since there's no one to investigate it to determine whether it could have been intentional. Unless you're a fire investigator?

We can probably say pretty clearly that rationality is something that goes out the window in a lot of disagreements (TWW) and especially where there's money involved. Are you assuming that people start from the same place, either in the broad strokes of life, like who your parents are and what they have, or in the business world, that both partners bring similarly valuable assets to the agreement and are able to balance each other out? Or are you into a Darwinist-type model where the weak are out-competed and fall behind?

6/10/2008 2:05:30 PM

Quote :

"Junior's parents are likely to spend a LOT of money on your pay-for-judgment court, even if they won't necessarily win, because they're pissed you shot their poor, misguided Larry Jr. instead of handing him your 30 bucks. If they have more than you, they can buy more judgments, so you're found guilty."

Part of my point was that such courts wouldn't be common, as their services would be all but worthless to their customers, since things would eventually have to end up in a reputable court before the ruling would hold much weight. They can pay as many corrupt crackpots as they want to rule me guilty. If my court, which has a reputation for honesty, and is backed up by reciprocity agreements with the courts that serve 98% of society, backs me up, then they're shit out of luck.

If a court is known for honesty, and has reciprocity agreements with most other courts, that's the entire basis of its livelihood. It will not attract customers without either. It therefore has every incentive to safeguard both its reputation and its ability to guarantee reciprocity from other courts. Both would be jeopardized by any act of corruption, even one for the benefit of a rich client prepared to pay out the nose.

Quote :

"Although, really, it's a lot cheaper if they're into revenge to show up in the middle of the night and anonymously set your stuff on fire, especially since there's no one to investigate it to determine whether it could have been intentional."

You don't think my insurance company would be very interested to find out who started what appears to be a deliberate fire in my house?

6/10/2008 2:54:50 PM

What if the insurance company decides to not pay out the money to you? Where do you find your redress?

6/10/2008 3:03:26 PM

I don't think I'd insure a guy who was so liable to bust caps in people's faces and shrug it off, especially in this kind of Wild West scenario. You'd never make any money.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 3:08 PM. Reason : I don't reason. I ACT, SON.]

6/10/2008 3:06:27 PM

^^ My insurance contract would presumably stipulate which court I would go to in search of redress. I would have an incentive to make sure the contract is stipulating a reputable arbitrator before I sign it. As I've just explained, no reputable court would rule in favor of my insurance company over me simply because they have more money. That would destroy their capacity to offer anything of value (like impartial judgment) on the market.

^ You've just identified another powerful disincentive for misbehavior.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ']

6/10/2008 3:09:22 PM

who pays for these courts?

6/10/2008 3:10:43 PM