Does such a thing as society exist?

Does it matter?

Do we have any obligations to anyone other than ourselves?

I know for a fact everyone believes in sacrificing at least some freedoms on this board. Government by its very nature is coercive. Take for instance, its status as the legitimate purveyor of law and justice. Did you not agree to those laws when you chose to live under that government? Does that not sacrifice your judgment of others lawfulness to the defined laws of another body of people who are not you?

PS: the US Constitution is not the definition of freedom, so don't cop out and say "well, I believe in the Constitution and that's it". The Constitution is coercive.

This should be a silly thread, but more and more I see people in here talking about freedom being defined as living only for yourself and not harming others, and yet we all still live under a document that provides for a collective declaration of war on other nations. I highly doubt we have any true anarcho-capitalists or objectivists in here, but if so, you're pretty poorly thought-out.

12/3/2009 4:04:32 PM

That is because the Constitution was the unconstitutional product of a counter-revolution against the ideals of the Founding Fathers and their Articles of Confederation.

As such, "I believe in the Articles of Confederation and that's it."

12/3/2009 4:21:39 PM

Quote :

"the Constitution was the unconstitutional product"

>.<

12/3/2009 4:30:15 PM

Quote :

"Does such a thing as society exist?"

This is how wikipedia defines society:

Quote :

"Society or human society is the manner or condition in which the members of a community live together for their mutual benefit. By extension, society denotes the people of a region or country, sometimes even the world, taken as a whole."

So, in that sense, of course society exists. No one will deny that they benefit from society. Inventions and discoveries by others improve our lives. We trade with other members of society. We form relationships with other members of society. We depend on others to provide basic necessities or even luxuries, and without communication with others and education, a human would be almost indistinguishable from any other wild animal. Society certainly matters, and we often do have obligations to other people. Generally, those obligations are fulfilled out of self-interest, but they're fulfilled nonetheless, and a person that is unwilling to give anything to others will be very unsuccessful in life.

You're right that the government is, by definition, coercive. We accept to some degree that coercion is okay. To me, coercion is acceptable when harm has been done to someone else; your freedom ends where mine begins, as the saying goes. Most people will agree that we need a justice system that punishes those that violate the rights of another. No one said that freedom is defined as the U.S. constitution. The constitution's purpose is to define what the federal government can do lawfully and what rights it should protect. Anarcho-capitalism says that private institutions could supply justice, but I don't know that I agree with that. I have no problem with a government that is actually there to protect rights, and I have no problem with that government using taxes to pay for those basic functions. I also see nothing wrong with having a government that can declare war. The purpose of war should be to protect your rights from outside invaders.

The debate isn't really whether or not government should protect rights or provide for national defense. Almost everyone agrees on those points. The debate is whether or not the federal government should be providing goods and services for the people and taxing in order to pay for it. When you take money from one person in order to pay for another person's expenses, no one's rights are being protected. It's a politician, guided entirely by the desire to get re-elected, determining that one person needs the money more than the other. Also, you can have taxes without having redistribution of wealth.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2009 4:46:48 PM

Quote :

"the Constitution was the unconstitutional product"

He's technically right. The authors of the Constitution had no authority to scrap the Articles of Confederation, which was the constitution at the time.

But the AoC were terrible. Have a national government or don't.

12/3/2009 7:02:05 PM

Quote :

"The authors of the Constitution had no authority to scrap the Articles of Confederation, which was the constitution at the time."

As may be, it's a bit silly to say that the Constitution went against the ideals of the founding fathers when a big chunk of the founding fathers wrote the damn thing.

And LoneSnark may be flat-out wrong. I won't claim to know, because I haven't spent much time studying the articles of confederation, but I presume that "all the states ratifying something" carried some weight under that august document.

12/3/2009 7:45:41 PM

Quote :

"He's technically right. The authors of the Constitution had no authority to scrap the Articles of Confederation, which was the constitution at the time. "

To be fair, it's a rare circumstance when the founders of a new government have any legal authority to scrap the old.

12/3/2009 8:07:47 PM

True. Not many constitutions (or institutions in general) contain within them a mechanism for their own destruction.

12/3/2009 8:12:43 PM

haha someone is having their first encounters with Libertarianism, I think.

Reading some Rand? Rothbard? Friedman? Spooner?

12/3/2009 8:22:07 PM

From what I recall everyone in this thread has long been well-acquainted with Libertarianism. I suspect that the OP is trying to get people to get their thoughts in order, because as he says, there's been a lot of fast-and-loose definitions of "freedom" and "liberty" thrown around lately.

12/3/2009 8:24:37 PM

A lot of people seem to think freedom means forcing someone to give you something. This is actually directly from the original post: "freedom being defined as living only for yourself and not harming others." No one is saying that, that I've seen. That's what the OP would like people to say, because it'd be a lot easier to make the "libertarians only care about themselves" argument that way, but...no, just no.

12/3/2009 8:34:57 PM

Quote :

"The Philadelphia convention's official function was to propose revisions to the Articles of Confederation. But the delegates, meeting in secret, quickly decided to violate their instructions and draft a totally new document. Out of the fifty-five present, only eight had signed the Declaration of Independence. Most of the leading radicals, including Sam Adams, Henry, Paine, Richard Henry Lee and Jefferson, were absent. In contrast, twenty-one delegates belonged to the militarist Society of the Cincinnati. Overall, the convention was dominated by the nationalist factions that the prior war had forged together: land speculators, ex-army officers, public creditors and privileged merchants."

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-5-4-3.pdf

12/3/2009 10:42:15 PM

Quote :

"A lot of people seem to think freedom means forcing someone to give you something."

really? who?

12/3/2009 11:29:23 PM

Quote :

"haha someone is having their first encounters with Libertarianism, I think. Reading some Rand? Rothbard? Friedman? Spooner?"

The OP has likely read more than your entire family

12/3/2009 11:32:44 PM

PinkandBlack is one of the few posters I don't routinely want to punch in the face, which is more than I can say for, say, Socks``. So I agree with McDanger on this point based on no evidence.

12/3/2009 11:55:26 PM

hahaha

12/4/2009 12:34:35 AM

Quote :

"really? who?"

Just check out the estate tax thread, healthcare thread, or the "15 signs America is falling apart thread." Users such as McDanger and PinkandBlack have openly said that they think redistribution of wealth is acceptable. McDanger noted that "freedom" means having the basic necessities of life provided to you free of charge, and anyone who disagrees is a libertarian crackpot.

12/4/2009 8:54:20 AM

compare levels of poverty among the elderly pre and post redistributive programs such as social security and medicare. i've heard plenty of people make the argument that this is a fallacy, that the decrease in this poverty rate was due to some other thing that happened then, but the correlation between medicare and the decrease in poverty among the elderly closely correlates, unlike the decrease in poverty among the elderly and, say, cheaper drugs or medical advances. they no longer have to fear bankruptcy when they need serious treatment.

for all the flaws in any health insurance system, at the least i think ones based on the egalitarian ideal of hc as a right are at least as successful in medical outcomes as those here. there are tradeoffs (wait time there vs. cost per person and access for some here), and no system is perfect, but if there is such a thing as society, and the well-being of others is in our interest, then yes, making sure everyone gets coverage without health problems threatening their ability to provide for a family or afford housing is a moral imperative.

i know it's not fun and hyperbolic and truly American, but most market economies don't put people's health on the market for profit. yes, market economies. defining anything to the left of the GOP as socialism is about as sensible as saying libertarians can only be mongoloid anarcho-capitalist mental patients like murray rothbard.

there are many ways to do this, and you can even make an argument that most of this should be left to the market, but i think that it is a moral imperative and the most basic of provisions we should work on universal access to (without just resorting to throwing all the costs on emergency rooms). I actually think a multi-tier system is good, but hospital trips shouldn't make you go bankrupt. if we support "life", we should support the sustainers of life (so don't pull that "durrr why not give universal cars to all" crap on me).

Quote :

"When you take money from one person in order to pay for another person's expenses, no one's rights are being protected. It's a politician, guided entirely by the desire to get re-elected, determining that one person needs the money more than the other."

Politicians are not independent self-aware actors. They only act at YOUR discretion. You endowed them with certain powers by agreeing to live under a social contract which at least tries to act like a democracy. This is just the cynical "well shit, i can't do anything about this cause the gubmit is like a death star i have no control over" stuff that's helped destroy democracy.

Quote :

"A lot of people seem to think freedom means forcing someone to give you something. This is actually directly from the original post: "freedom being defined as living only for yourself and not harming others." No one is saying that, that I've seen. That's what the OP would like people to say, because it'd be a lot easier to make the "libertarians only care about themselves" argument that way, but...no, just no."

You're going to have to give more than just "you're wrong because you're wrong" as an answer. You're still defining "freedom" based on strict constructionalism based on your previous posts.

Imagine the US had never existed. Imagine we didn't have books telling us about all the musings of dead philosophers. Imagine that "freedom" would have to then be defined by basis of it being natural law. Imagine we had to start "society" all over again with no roadmap. What would you define "freedom" as then?

Quote :

"haha someone is having their first encounters with Libertarianism, I think. Reading some Rand? Rothbard? Friedman? Spooner?"

Hur hur hur, no. Either you've not read any posts I've made here in the past 4 years or you're just being stupid.

If anyone is a true believer here, it's the other guy I quoted who I'm going to guess had the Ron Paul for President campaign play a huge role in his life, even down to him being a big gold and Crazy Racist Ron Paul Newsletter Writing Gold Man Lew Rockwell fan. I mean, Doctor Steven Chaos is a libertarian on here I respect and actually like because it seems he's independently thought out his opinions, not just cribbed them from THE ROLOVEUTION. i remember when i was a libertarian, till I was about 20. i'd read Rand and Friedman and thought it was Fair. then i met people who weren't priveledged white gamers and grew up.

12/4/2009 9:42:50 AM

i beleive that freedom starts with seeing these

-taxation is theft
-regulations prevent our best persons from being their best
-i shoudl not be forced by government to run my business a certain way

12/4/2009 9:46:20 AM

lol

12/4/2009 10:02:25 AM

I don't deny that social security and medicare have decreased poverty. They've also caused us to run a budget deficit year after year and now the costs are exploding. You can't just provide this crap and not have it paid for. No one is denying that government can pay for people's expenses.

I disagree that making sure everyone gets health coverage is a moral imperative. The fact that you have to force someone else to pay for it is my problem with it. The real problem that has to be addressed is healthcare costs, and no one is doing that. I agree that we should be aiming for universal access to healthcare, but that means lowering the cost, not spreading out the cost. I won't claim to know the solution, but I know that prices of all goods and services (that aren't extremely scarce) go down over time when there's competition. Unless the government is involved, of course, in which case prices skyrocket every year.

You don't put "people's health" on the market. People's health is not for sale. What is for sale is medicine and medical services. If you couldn't make a profit by being a doctor or developing medicines, not very many people would do it, and you'd have lower quality care across the board. Apparently when you "grew up" and became a statist you forgot about the concept of profit motive. It wouldn't hurt to refamiliarize yourself.

Quote :

"Politicians are not independent self-aware actors. They only act at YOUR discretion. You endowed them with certain powers by agreeing to live under a social contract which at least tries to act like a democracy. This is just the cynical "well shit, i can't do anything about this cause the gubmit is like a death star i have no control over" stuff that's helped destroy democracy."

You have a lot more faith in politicians than I do, but it doesn't seem justified. Politicians just do what will get them re-elected. If they think they can get the votes of 51% of people by promising them the money of the 49%, they'll do it. Anyone, regardless of their political views, should be able to see that in politics, lying and making false promises is business as usual.

Quote :

"Imagine the US had never existed. Imagine we didn't have books telling us about all the musings of dead philosophers. Imagine that "freedom" would have to then be defined by basis of it being natural law. Imagine we had to start "society" all over again with no roadmap. What would you define "freedom" as then?"

It has nothing to do with the United States or dead philosophers. Just think about the word freedom. What does it mean to be free? It means without hinderance. Without constraint. The ability to operate without shackles. It means you can live without someone forcing you to do something. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom. I don't understand the confusion over this word. It isn't at all a difficult concept. I don't need to read up on 18th century political philosophy to understand it.

Quote :

"If anyone is a true believer here, it's the other guy I quoted who I'm going to guess had the Ron Paul for President campaign play a huge role in his life, even down to him being a big gold and Crazy Racist Ron Paul Newsletter Writing Gold Man Lew Rockwell fan. I mean, Doctor Steven Chaos is a libertarian on here I respect and actually like because it seems he's independently thought out his opinions, not just cribbed them from THE ROLOVEUTION. i remember when i was a libertarian, till I was about 20. i'd read Rand and Friedman and thought it was Fair. then i met people who weren't priveledged white gamers and grew up."

Yeah, you've gone on this rant before. I called myself a libertarian years before I even knew who Ron Paul was. Maybe, one day, I can ascend to your plane of knowledge where I will finally learn why libertarianism is so wrong. There must be something I'm just glossing over and believing on faith.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM. Reason : ]

12/4/2009 11:03:41 AM

Quote :

"You don't put "people's health" on the market. People's health is not for sale. What is for sale is medicine and medical services. "

wat

Quote :

"Politicians just do what will get them re-elected."

As they should.

Quote :

" If they think they can get the votes of 51% of people by promising them the money of the 49%, they'll do it. Anyone, regardless of their political views, should be able to see that in politics, lying and making false promises is business as usual."

What you described is not a false promise. It's a promise you don't like.



[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ]

12/4/2009 11:50:09 AM

back to the original top 3 questions in this thread by the OP.

1) individuals typically make up families, that make up small communities or tribes (and do indeed still watch out for each other.. i have decent relationships even in my neighborhood and we look out for each other typically. i trust them less than my closest family, but they are 'up there' i'd say.

after that it comes down to politics and voting as really i have no influence beyond that. other than my job.

2) i think it can matter, but doesnt have to. if it doesnt we break down into smaller tribes and still 'govern' in groups. if it does matter and we keep honest leaders that are keeping humanities best interests at hand and we trust them that can usually be good too and indeed 'matter'

3) once again it's biological to 'have obligations'. mothers/fathers usually fall into their natural roll when children come along it seems. (male turns into hunter/gatherer and does everything possible to get resources for female/child. and female nutures and raises the kid)

beyond that it's pretty much optional. i mean you can care for a 'company' b/c it gives you 100k a year. and you want that for yourself and wife/kid?? so you "oblidge" to it. governments though.. and societies.. i mean if you need them for welfare.. healthcare, police care, school care, yes i start giving a damn.

but if i can provide my own police/school/health and welfare... fuck it. i'm flying solo and staying under the radar.

12/4/2009 12:06:50 PM

Quote :

"-taxation is theft"

Then every form of government, ever, is criminal? When formulating your next brain dead oversimplification, could you at least think it through its logical conclusions?

Quote :

"-regulations prevent our best persons from being their best"

Examples? They certainly do prevent the worst people from being their worst, though.

Quote :

"-i shoudl not be forced by government to run my business a certain way"

This is too broad to even debate.

12/4/2009 12:25:35 PM

Quote :

"-taxation is theft"

if it goes beyond more than 20% of your earnings then yes. 'taxing the rich' is BS and always will be. it kills jobs ultimately unless you'd rather have more government jobs than private jobs

Quote :

"-regulations prevent our best persons from being their best"

lol.

Quote :

"-i shoudl not be forced by government to run my business a certain way"

lol. i can finally start my company that lets ncaa teams legally give their players horz when they win big games. yesss.

12/4/2009 12:34:18 PM

Quote :

"It has nothing to do with the United States or dead philosophers. Just think about the word freedom. What does it mean to be free? It means without hinderance. Without constraint. The ability to operate without shackles. It means you can live without someone forcing you to do something. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom. I don't understand the confusion over this word. It isn't at all a difficult concept. I don't need to read up on 18th century political philosophy to understand it."

You're a smart kid. One of these days your intellectual balls will drop and we can chuckle about how foolish you currently look.

12/4/2009 1:26:10 PM

I feel shackled because I can't urinate on people that walk near me in the streets.

12/4/2009 1:33:06 PM

^me too!!

12/4/2009 1:34:25 PM

Quote :

"Does such a thing as society exist?"

No, the world you live in is an illusion. Take the red pill man.

12/4/2009 2:28:40 PM

Quote :

"Hur hur hur, no. Either you've not read any posts I've made here in the past 4 years or you're just being stupid."

Sadly, the former. I don't think we've engaged each other enough for me to know your political beliefs.

I wrongly assumed you were someone that was newly wrestling with libertarian arguments. I apologize.

12/4/2009 3:01:17 PM

Quote :

"I called myself a libertarian years before I even knew who Ron Paul was. Maybe, one day, I can ascend to your plane of knowledge where I will finally learn why libertarianism is so wrong. There must be something I'm just glossing over and believing on faith."

The first step is realizing all economics is a social science and not something anywhere close to science, and it ceases to adhere to any sort of set "law" as soon as one irrational actor steps out of line.

edit: alright, you have faith in people and not "government", right? why can't people and government be the same thing? you'll probably say something along the lines of public choice theory or the prisoner's dillema. but why should i accept that when it's pretty self-evident that as soon as i step out of line and help the prisoner or act selflessly while in a public role, both of those chestnuts of libertarian theory go away.

[Edited on December 5, 2009 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2009 4:23:57 PM

Probably off topic, but a common complaint against government is that it is essentially a monopoly, and that the free market can avoid all of the problems of a monopoly by promoting competition. But what is to prevent any one company from growing into a monopoly anyway? I'll accept that it is possible for a government to be bought and paid for, and utilized to keep competition at bay by exploiting its monopoly on force and ability to make laws and regulations. But what guarantee do we have that some businesses wouldn't rise to major power in a lawless, anarchic society? If they cannot rely upon the government's force, can't they just buy their own weapons and manufacture their own enforcement? Certainly other businesses would be free to do the same, but then day-to-day life becomes nothing more than daily turf wars. How can a prosperous and peaceful society thrive in conditions like that?

12/5/2009 5:04:22 PM

Quote :

"why can't people and government be the same thing? you'll probably say something along the lines of public choice theory or the prisoner's dillema. but why should i accept that when it's pretty self-evident that as soon as i step out of line and help the prisoner or act selflessly while in a public role, both of those chestnuts of libertarian theory go away."

In theory they could be, but history proves time and again that politicians do not act selflessly. Just like history proves time and again that overall people engage in rational behavior (where rational is defined as maximizing utility).

Quote :

"But what is to prevent any one company from growing into a monopoly anyway? I'll accept that it is possible for a government to be bought and paid for, and utilized to keep competition at bay by exploiting its monopoly on force and ability to make laws and regulations."

Companies will grow into monopolies, but without government interference, monopolies are short lived. Smaller, more efficient, better competition is always just around the corner.

Quote :

" But what guarantee do we have that some businesses wouldn't rise to major power in a lawless, anarchic society? If they cannot rely upon the government's force, can't they just buy their own weapons and manufacture their own enforcement? Certainly other businesses would be free to do the same, but then day-to-day life becomes nothing more than daily turf wars. How can a prosperous and peaceful society thrive in conditions like that? "

This is one of the legitimate functions of government, to ensure that individuals and companies do not use force to compel people into engaging into actions they don't want.

[Edited on December 5, 2009 at 5:16 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/5/2009 5:09:13 PM

Quote :

"In theory they could be, but history proves time and again that politicians do not act selflessly. Just like history proves time and again that overall people engage in rational behavior (where rational is defined as maximizing utility)."

according to who or what? history indicates all sorts of contradictory trends. what matters is treating them as some nice judgments to look at and not absolutes. there's plenty of successful instances of public action as well (but I'm sure I'm missing some Common Sense truth here about how people in Denmark are not actually free because of a cripplingly oppressive welfare state whereas people in Hong Kong are free despite their lack of democracy).

it all comes down to how cynical you are about people, and if you are trying to prove people's cynicism then LAFFO at you. it's about as valid as my dumb opinions.

anyway, back to freedom.

Quote :

"This is one of the legitimate functions of government"

according to?

does the natural definition of freedom (non-coercion) allow in any way shape or form for a social contract?

[Edited on December 5, 2009 at 5:42 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2009 5:42:06 PM

Are you seriously questioning whether history shows time and again governments to be rife with corruption and self serving individuals rather than a benevolent force of individuals who have the interests of the people at heart regardless of the personal cost?

As to freedom vs "social contracts" yes, freedom allows for social contracts, and even if it didn't, human nature is to form social contracts, so any definition of freedom which does not account for that tendency is useless and unrealistic.

12/5/2009 6:19:51 PM

well despite all those corrupt individuals, i think democratic government does a decent job of providing for the common (limited) welfare. if it didn't, we'd be living in failed states. come on now. we're doing pretty good for people led by corrupt people. I mean, you can drive to the store and buy things that don't kill you. can't say that for bad governed states.

(ps: i think its hilarious how a moderate liberal like me who doesnt' like the hc bill is a socialist on here)

but you keep bootstrappin' in the free world, bro.

12/5/2009 6:54:08 PM

1) Yes it does do a decent job. To paraphrase: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried.

2) We're doing pretty good so far, but we're also a relatively young country. And I would suggest that recent events show that we are not improving as far as corruption and self serving politicians are concerned.

3) As to driving to the store to buy things that don't kill you, might I direct your attention to Fen-Phen, and more recently processed peanut butter, and depending on whether they learned their safety lessons or not, NC's new and only approved diabetes equipment supplier for medicaid (http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/6467764/)

4) I don't seem to recall calling you a socialist.

12/5/2009 7:41:43 PM

^^ I disagree. 400 years ago England was the best administered realm in the world, evidence from that time shows an absolute monarch less corrupt in administration than most countries today. Similarly, many democracies today are administered so poorly they are all but failed states.

I believe good governance has a strong cultural component. As such, America would be similarly well administered today as either a dictatorship or a communist state. We just can't help ourselves.

12/6/2009 9:57:00 AM

Quote :

"The first step is realizing all economics is a social science and not something anywhere close to science, and it ceases to adhere to any sort of set "law" as soon as one irrational actor steps out of line."

You're actually making the case for Austrian economics, here. One of the main criticisms of the Austrian school is that it doesn't treat economics as a real science. Modern economics uses econometrics to try and model/predict outcomes, but Austrian economists say that human behavior is too unpredictable to be modeled in any meaningful way. Hence the need to derive principles from axioms rather than mathematical formulas.

12/6/2009 12:34:27 PM

^lol, self evident truths about human behavior. tell me some of the axioms of this approach to economics, and do it for sociology and psychology while you're at it.

Quote :

"As to driving to the store to buy things that don't kill you, might I direct your attention to Fen-Phen, and more recently processed peanut butter, and depending on whether they learned their safety lessons or not, NC's new and only approved diabetes equipment supplier for medicaid "

someone screwed up, let's throw out the system that works on 99 of the other 100 products out there.

Quote :

"I believe good governance has a strong cultural component."

I actually agree with this, and I would call myself a fan of republicanism before i say i'm a fan of democracy. it's the civic involvement aspect, the pushing of the rulers and the rulers responding in right, that works best.

but come on, there've been plenty of shitty monarchs too, even in your England. now a philosopher king, a benevolent enlightened dictator, that's different (and not real unless you're talking about me. i kid.).

12/7/2009 10:44:44 PM

Quote :

"someone screwed up, let's throw out the system that works on 99 of the other 100 products out there."

I didn't say throw it out (though, I would love to see it heavily modified, but that's for another thread). However, I distrust handing over control and authority to the only entity allowed to use guns to enforce its will when you can accomplish the same thing in other ways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories

Incidentally, that is the second time you have claimed I have said something I haven't. Putting words into my mouth and constructing strawman arguments are not going to make your point any better.

12/7/2009 11:15:00 PM

i have a hard time separating out the "throw it all away" libertarians from the "meh" libertarians.

and the thread was moreso dealing with those who say something like the FDA was coercive and a threat to freedom. if you accept the premise that government, even federal government is legitimate, congrats, you're on my side of this thread whether you realized it or not at first.

actually, i think everyone here is when actually pressed for an answer. it came from the threads on healthcare where some people insisted that their money should never forcibly go to help other people.

12/8/2009 8:57:46 PM

The FDA can exist without being coercive, so why not have it be that way? If you choose consume non-FDA approved items, then you deserve what happens to you! We can slap logos on products for which stage of FDA approval they have satisfied (I. This product will not kill you; II. This product will do what it is advertised to do.)

12/9/2009 12:33:59 AM

I believe coercion is a violation of natural rights and as such is immoral. As a result of this foundational belief, I find anarcho-capitalism to be the only morally justifiable political system. I will say that I am pretty new to politics and philosophy in general, so I am still exploring other possibilities and am interested in other views.

Why do you claim anyone holding to anarcho-capitalism to be "poorly thought-out"? It seems to me that the philosophy is very coherent, and in fact the ultimate logical conclusion of individual liberty. Or are you contending that individual liberty is secondary to the general well-being of society? If so, then we are starting from completely different premises.

12/27/2009 11:40:26 PM

because if the capitalists don't support the masses, the whole system (capitalism) will ultimately fail. Thus the need for socialism, and a lot of it.

12/27/2009 11:47:10 PM

Quote :

"Why do you claim anyone holding to anarcho-capitalism to be "poorly thought-out"? It seems to me that the philosophy is very coherent, and in fact the ultimate logical conclusion of individual liberty."

I used to like the idea of anarcho-capitalism, but then I thought through it and realized that without some basic level of anti-trust and anti-crime enforcement from government, after some years it would inevitably end with a bloated "protection" industry, monopolies within most industries, and alliances between industries... until you end up with the merger of one expansive production group with a mafia-like protection group that impose control over society, effectively becoming a huge totalitarian government.

(unless of course your idea of anarcho-capitalism still involves some form of simple government regulation on business and enough of a police force to avoid protection/security becoming a major power... but at that point you're practically back to libertarianism.)

Anarcho-capitalism is fairly morally/intellectually consistent, but unfortunately it's not really a practical system at all without making some fairly unrealistic assumptions about society and behavior.

12/27/2009 11:56:09 PM

^^ Ok, well I do think if it were possible to have a completely voluntary socialist society, that could work also. But I am not convinced it is possible. I am however beginning to study socialist anarchist philosophy to attempt to get a better grasp of their claims. I did not intend for this to be a socialism/capitalism debate... I was under the impression it was an argument for the justification of coercion (although I'm not exactly sure what the argument is).

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 11:59 PM. Reason : ^]

12/27/2009 11:59:00 PM

^^ I agree that the defense industry appears to be the shakiest part of a potential anarcho-capitalist system, but I am not ready to abandon it as impractical yet. I do think it is possible that competition of private defense agencies could exist in a way that would inhibit a monopoly of force from taking over, and am not ready to resign to the inevitability of such a monopoly. It is not completely unfounded to expect market forces to keep these agencies in check. I think that the ultimate goal for a society should be to eliminate all forms of coercion, and this means somehow protecting against this monopoly on force.

http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf This collection of essays on the subject looks like it could provide some interesting thoughts. I have not yet read it, but hope to get to it soon.

12/28/2009 11:16:31 AM

Quote :

"I believe coercion is a violation of natural rights and as such is immoral."

What evidence do you have for these so-called natural rights? Where can I find them in nature?

12/28/2009 11:42:51 AM

Quote :

"What evidence do you have for these so-called natural rights? Where can I find them in nature?"

Alright then, ignoring the concept of natural rights, let's say I do not believe that any individual or subset of individuals has a right to impose their values through use of force on any other individual. If you disagree, then you should explain what gives certain people that right and how we decide who it applies to and who it does not.

12/28/2009 11:59:13 AM