Here's something I've been trying to think through. It's probably been thought about before, so, I'd thought I'd post it to speed up my thinking on this topic.
I'm noticing through various conversations, outside of this forum (but sometimes in this forum too), that people that defend the government as a worthwhile institution is based on the level in which the government operates.
In their minds the government operates on the level of 'keeping out corruption, fraud, and defending the innocent'. So the government works on a level outside of logic. Thus one will hear such things as 'we need to be pragmatic, etc...'. The government is in the haphazard, ad hoc realm of dealing with destructive forces and since these forces don't operate in the realm of reasonableness, then a institution, ie. government, is necessary to operate on that level as well. Therefore logical arguments, though solid philosophically, and if followed, then theories based off of logical propositions will work. Yet instantly the mind-set, so it's more psychological than logical, of government defenders is that when dealing with criminals or dangers of the world, then individuals need to deal with those dangers on that beastly level. It's a relational level with the world that doesn't operate with logical arguments because as many have probably heard: 'how is ones logic going to stop people that operate with ruthless power and always want to harm people' - so - the government works on the 'eye for an eye' level. It seems that those that defend the government concede the fact that the government is a force of illogic because it has to deal with unreasonable people on their unreasonable level. They concede the fact that the government is illogical.
What I see is the argument seems to always become not between the two people arguing it out: 'governmental advocate v. anti-statist'. The argument easily snowballs into 'how are logical arguments going to stop criminals', so, immediately it's not even about the government advocate and their position at all. They don't even try to refute the logical argument. They simply assert that logic doesn't stop bad, ruthless people, so, an institution needs to exist that 'goes down to their ruthless level'.
thoughts would be highly welcomed. If I need to clarify anything please ask, because this train of thought seems to be helping me understand something I'm trying to think through in a more generalized view too.
Very interesting train of thought.
For me (like for Mises, I believe) the (justified) state is the necessary (minimal, orderly, predictable, and democratically guided) limitation of liberty (liberty tax, if you will) that I agree to pay for the privilege of avoiding the alternative: a likely violent limitation of my liberty by an unpredictable gamut of self-interested agents with unpredictable agendas (beliefs), powers, and willingness to enforce them onto me. I have accepted that my liberty/freedom WILL be limited -- that an existence with ZERO liberty-limitation (though, of course, hugely preferable!) is, in fact, Utopian. To the extent that I CAN choose/influence the size and quality of that liberty limitation (which I believe will maximize my chances of achieving my ends of peace, prosperity, etc.), I see nothing illogical in making the above preference. The state would become obsolete (for me) if I become convinced that those ends are more likely to be achieved without it.
Z.
So you pay the protection racket to keep it from burning down your business. How sad.
Knight_of_BAAWA: So you pay the protection racket to keep it from burning down your business. How sad.
There's no such thing as a 'right of human existence devoid of sadness'.
z1235: ...that an existence with ZERO liberty-limitation (though, of course, hugely preferable!) is, in fact, Utopian.
...that an existence with ZERO liberty-limitation (though, of course, hugely preferable!) is, in fact, Utopian.
I think you are missing the point in my post. Maybe this needs to be discussed to understand what I said completely. The government doesn't operate in the realm of logic. Logic is not utopian. It is a fact. This actually needs not to be discussed by me anymore in this thread cause you didn't grasp in this statement, at least, what I was saying. No offense, but my OP had nothing to do with this.
z1235: To the extent that I CAN choose/influence the size and quality of that liberty limitation (which I believe will maximize my chances of achieving my ends of peace, prosperity, etc.), I see nothing illogical in making the above preference.
To the extent that I CAN choose/influence the size and quality of that liberty limitation (which I believe will maximize my chances of achieving my ends of peace, prosperity, etc.), I see nothing illogical in making the above preference.
It IS illogical that negative liberty needs to be limited. Because logically is it is NOT limited. A limitation on liberty is an arbitrary assertion, but again, this doesn't really have to do with my OP.
z1235: The state would become obsolete (for me) if I become convinced that those ends are more likely to be achieved without it.
The state would become obsolete (for me) if I become convinced that those ends are more likely to be achieved without it.
Well, you are not arguing in the realm of logic. Maybe you'll actually a test subject, for purposes of this forum, thread, and out-and-about-the-world in general. You are involved in an intellectual exercise to show how the government does in fact operate on a lower level. And thus no logic will ever reach government advocates because they are not focused on logic but actually are focused on the lower level in which government operates - which has nothing to do with logic and all to do with 'who's going to keep the world safe' psychological mentality. The government operates on a lower level and all that try to uphold a government are actually propping up their own lower psyche phenomenas, ie. anger, rage, subduing ruthlessness, fraud, etc..., thus that which is upon the level of bruteness. It really operates within the animal world and doesn't rise to the level of human action. The individuals in the government operate, obviously, upon the human action level, but what their focused upon, their operations - deal with that which is of the lower levels of the human species, ie. that which can be also found in the animal world. It's this brute force level that government operates so no logic will penetrate the mentality of people that psychologically defend it - not logically defend it cause their mentality of defense is not upon a good argument but upon a lower level of existence. The government operates in the 'dog eat dog world'. Now this has more to do with my original OP.
z1235:There's no such thing as a 'right of human existence devoid of sadness'.
wilderness: Here's something I've been trying to think through. It's probably been thought about before, so, I'd thought I'd post it to speed up my thinking on this topic. I'm noticing through various conversations, outside of this forum (but sometimes in this forum too), that people that defend the government as a worthwhile institution is based on the level in which the government operates. In their minds the government operates on the level of 'keeping out corruption, fraud, and defending the innocent'. So the government works on a level outside of logic. Thus one will hear such things as 'we need to be pragmatic, etc...'. The government is in the haphazard, ad hoc realm of dealing with destructive forces and since these forces don't operate in the realm of reasonableness, then a institution, ie. government, is necessary to operate on that level as well. Therefore logical arguments, though solid philosophically, and if followed, then theories based off of logical propositions will work. Yet instantly the mind-set, so it's more psychological than logical, of government defenders is that when dealing with criminals or dangers of the world, then individuals need to deal with those dangers on that beastly level. It's a relational level with the world that doesn't operate with logical arguments because as many have probably heard: 'how is ones logic going to stop people that operate with ruthless power and always want to harm people' - so - the government works on the 'eye for an eye' level. It seems that those that defend the government concede the fact that the government is a force of illogic because it has to deal with unreasonable people on their unreasonable level. They concede the fact that the government is illogical. What I see is the argument seems to always become not between the two people arguing it out: 'governmental advocate v. anti-statist'. The argument easily snowballs into 'how are logical arguments going to stop criminals', so, immediately it's not even about the government advocate and their position at all. They don't even try to refute the logical argument. They simply assert that logic doesn't stop bad, ruthless people, so, an institution needs to exist that 'goes down to their ruthless level'. thoughts would be highly welcomed. If I need to clarify anything please ask, because this train of thought seems to be helping me understand something I'm trying to think through in a more generalized view too.
I like how you incorporate psychology in order to gain a third-person view on the state debate. I feel like you've captured the ideals of one of my statist colleagues quite well, and now you've shown me what to look out for.
TelfordUS: I like how you incorporate psychology in order to gain a third-person view on the state debate. I feel like you've captured the ideals of one of my statist colleagues quite well, and now you've shown me what to look out for.
thank you. Yes, I think you understand what I am saying completely, especially when you note, 'third-person view on the state debate'. That is an excellent way of putting it. When I argue with a statist, I was arguing in a logical manner and trying to meet their ideas head on in a logical debate. But now I realize that most if not all, depending on the person, debates with statists involve not their arguments, in a way, but their psyche and I think they are really arguing about 'how to defend against base-line acts of humans'. It's a totally different level of dialogue, thus the phrase 'talking past each other' because what they are thinking about, how to stop unreasonable behavior, and what I am discussing, logical proposition this or that, are dialogues on completely different levels of inquiry. I'm sure you've heard or come across the argument 'how will a logical argument stop a person coming at me with a knife'. And that is what they are wondering because it's supposedly the government that deals with these base level interactions. Or if there is no government then who would stop corruption. Again, government, in their eyes, deals with base level human interactions. Another one, to include the welfare aspect of the state is 'who will stop greedy people from making all the workers poor and how will workers get healthcare when all the rich people horde the money'. Again, another assumed base-level event, ie. greed, that the government deals with. They undoubtedly see logic as pissing in the wind in the face of such base-level behaviors that 'government defenders' assume that's what government does. It deals with base-level behaviors. So to try to bring logic into the sphere of what the government does is hard to fathom by 'government defenders' because in their psyche, it seems from what I've encountered, government deals with situations that are not logical. So why bring logic into the equation I hear them asking? In other words, here's another one, there's a lot of crazy people out there and they are unreasonable how is your logic going to defend you when there is no government to stop these crazies.
That's mainly been the kind of arguments that I deal with when I try to discuss/argue with people that want a government.
I do know the purpose of logic. Logic is the foresight of what is possible (or impossible), and I think it is a low-time preference event to expand upon theories logically, but this is foresight that is being dealth with. This is about future events; what is possible down the road that is being discussed when it comes to logical propositions that are not fully enacted now. Thinking in terms of civil society what are new logical insights, comparatively new, are the potential seeds of what will be. But it takes time, a long time quite possibly when referring to history, Age of Reason is a great example of this, in which the philosophy and arts of what is possible has the foresight to move into event horizons, expand upon what is known, and in time this knowledge gets diffused into the rest of civil society and becomes almost common sense.
Great post Wilderness. This is exactly how I feel every time I get in a debate. "But who will protect X Y and Z". You are wholly correct in that they never address the points asserted but instead default, almost by instinct, to fear and anything not having to do with logic.
Politics is not a priori as a result logic is very limited in exploring the field of political science. Really, politics is founded upon empiricism, trial-and-error, and social evolution, as a result there is rarely a logical answer in politics that is set in stone because our knowledge of the situation is always in flux.
Furthermore, politics is a field of the possible, it is about improving human society through piecemeal changes that must be accepted by the majority (either a majority of the population when speaking of norms, or a majority of the government when speaking of legislature) in order to take root. Otherwise, they might be dandy ideas, but will be all that they will, in the end, be merely ideas that die along with the individuals who have them.
Radical change can be made, in the long term, look at the reforms that K. Marx set out to become a part of society. While it might have taken over a century, the vast majority of them have become an intrinsic part of what is considered Western liberal democracy, and the lesson to be learned is that they by political parties that were able to work for piecemeal goals (e.g. the SPD in Germany). While a political idea might be "logical", if it cannot be put into action, then it is politically irrelevant, and the logic itself may become irrelevant once the axioms change along with our knowledge of society.
I contend that such a philosophy is intrinsically part of the American, even Western politics, and hence one does not see many basing their political positions on a completely logical framework, but rather they create them unique to each situation. The political opinions of the 1930s are not the political opinions of today for the sheer fact that politics is very much ideas being put into motion, and the situation, and the resulting knowledge motivating the political opinions morph as a result of the changing world they are set in.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Great post again, you burkean whig.
laminustacitus: While a political idea might be "logical", if it cannot be put into action, then it is politically irrelevant, and the logic itself may become irrelevant once the axioms change along with our knowledge of society.
While a political idea might be "logical", if it cannot be put into action, then it is politically irrelevant, and the logic itself may become irrelevant once the axioms change along with our knowledge of society.
Good post laminustacitus. I particularly liked this sentence here. I think it fits well as a summary of what you stated.
I'm thinking about, which correlates with the rest of your post in general, about the large political ideas. I know you mentioned political movements in the 1930's etc.. and these were smaller compared with the Marxist political action that you also mentioned for Marxist or a form of Marxism could be considered the genus of Roosevelts New Deal for instance, thus, placing the New Deal as a species within that larger framework.
Another larger logical framework or theorizing would be that of Locke, Kant, Rosseau, and Hutcheson, etc... (Age of Reason which thereby includes not only political philosophy but other things as well, ie. Newton, etc...)which layed the seeds first philosophically that took about +/-100 years before they found any action. Art is another huge contributor to movements in time. It's that event horizon or foresight that philosophers and artists bring to society in general. What is logically possible may not take root in action, but what is logically possible is helpful to see what needs or could happen in the first place, unless of course, if what needs or could happen is stumbled upon or found accidently but the risk might be greater. A good investor for future capital goods is less likely to act upon an investment deal by merely listening to a whim only. And with large political movements that involve large frameworks of thought I'm inclined to think these kinds of actions don't happen only whims but are logically consistent first, along with many other social movements, ie. art, sciences, etc..., to show the path in a ever-growing all at once event.
filc: Great post Wilderness. This is exactly how I feel every time I get in a debate. "But who will protect X Y and Z". You are wholly correct in that they never address the points asserted but instead default, almost by instinct, to fear and anything not having to do with logic.
thanks. And yes, it does seem that way, great way of putting it, "instead default, almost by instinct, to fear". I think that's because the government operates on that level and therefore there might be a correlation or more between larger and/or powerful government ----> people not dealing with their own base-level experiences on their own. Cause the government will do it for them. This grows to government not only penetrating with propaganda on this base-level experience, ie. fearmongering on various issues to get legislation passed, but also how much a government actually takes over on providing thus owning basic necessities, ie. food, water, clothing, and shelter, via various bills and regulations that provides the government access/control into these necessities. Control that is felt and thereby abandoned to varying degrees depending upon the person and how they are impacted by such governmental measures. For instance, the control of the government supplying food stamps to a family in need thus in turn embeds further the government into their lives, again more control and felt need by the family, as the family has abandoned, thus, government take-over of their attaining food. It would definitely be threatening to this family to hear about government dissolution, 'who's going to feed me if that happens' I can imagine I would hear.
wilderness:I think you are missing the point in my post. Maybe this needs to be discussed to understand what I said completely. The government doesn't operate in the realm of logic. Logic is not utopian. It is a fact. This actually needs not to be discussed by me anymore in this thread cause you didn't grasp in this statement, at least, what I was saying. No offense, but my OP had nothing to do with this.
Chances are that I don't understand what you are saying. It wasn't my intention to divert from your OP. So if you think that this is still off topic from your OP just say so and I'll quietly leave the thread.
wilderness:It IS illogical that negative liberty needs to be limited. Because logically is it is NOT limited. A limitation on liberty is an arbitrary assertion, but again, this doesn't really have to do with my OP.
I agree. Logically, negative liberty need not be limited. Logically, nothing contrary to peace, liberty, and prosperity NEEDS to ever happen. But I (and, unless you live on a different planet, you) empirically observe a reality in which liberty IS (and has consistently been) limited (and I'm not only talking about a state here). You seem to have "discovered" that reality exists in a realm that is "lower" than some "higher" idealized, logical, realm of model human interaction. I hope you don't think that I'm oblivious to such a discovery myself.
wilderness:Well, you are not arguing in the realm of logic... ... It's this brute force level that government operates so no logic will penetrate the mentality of people that psychologically defend it - not logically defend it cause their mentality of defense is not upon a good argument but upon a lower level of existence.
... It's this brute force level that government operates so no logic will penetrate the mentality of people that psychologically defend it - not logically defend it cause their mentality of defense is not upon a good argument but upon a lower level of existence.
There's no single "realm of logic". By assuming different starting axioms, different people can ALL use logic to arrive to different conclusions. It's a tad presumptious to accuse all those who had arrived to a conclusion different form yours of being "illogical" or of residing in some "lower" realm of human existence. I like to think that I am VERY logical and I do make a conscious effort at making good arguments -- I don't take accusations to the contrary lightly. I say this only FYI (in case you needed it in writing). Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion.
Knight_of_BAAWA:How about you address the gun in the room, or at the very least--stop using strawmen. Fallacies do kill arguments. Why you refuse to learn that is beyond me.
Knight, I want to have productive arguments with you, and I mean this with all sincerity. I have no ax to grind, and no ideology to push/sell. Can we find some common ground from which to start a mutually beneficial interaction? I'll try this even stronger from my side, so just giving you the heads up.
z1235: wilderness:It IS illogical that negative liberty needs to be limited. Because logically is it is NOT limited. A limitation on liberty is an arbitrary assertion, but again, this doesn't really have to do with my OP. I agree. Logically, negative liberty need not be limited. Logically, nothing contrary to peace, liberty, and prosperity NEEDS to ever happen.
I agree. Logically, negative liberty need not be limited. Logically, nothing contrary to peace, liberty, and prosperity NEEDS to ever happen.
ok
z1235: But I (and, unless you live on a different planet, you) empirically observe a reality in which liberty IS (and has consistently been) limited (and I'm not only talking about a state here).
But I (and, unless you live on a different planet, you) empirically observe a reality in which liberty IS (and has consistently been) limited (and I'm not only talking about a state here).
Civil society and the liberties enjoyed by individuals have undoubtedly increased in the history of the world in varies regions and times. Some of those places are arguably becoming once again experiences of less liberty. There is a flux, as lam pointed out. The logic of negative liberty in its' theorizing has definitely changed since ca. 1800. For one, Molinari (?spell) was the first person to show how private security and not public security is possible in a civil society and he didn't theoretically spell that out until ca. mid-1800's. Subjective value theory is a 1800 phenomena too. Without Locke, Kant, and others the foresight into liberty, reason, and politics, etc... would have not diffused into general society after a particular amount of time, as I noted in a previous post above +/-100 years it took to diffuse. The Age of Reason is but one historical proof that you are painting a too broad of a brush as to how liberty is understood. And that's not even considering the huge amount of intellectual maturation that happened in civil society in other fields during the age of reason.
z1235: You seem to have "discovered" that reality exists in a realm that is "lower" than some "higher" idealized, logical, realm of model human interaction. I hope you don't think that I'm oblivious to such a discovery myself.
You seem to have "discovered" that reality exists in a realm that is "lower" than some "higher" idealized, logical, realm of model human interaction. I hope you don't think that I'm oblivious to such a discovery myself.
What is significant about what I'm saying and as others have noticed too (as I started out my OP with 'undoubtedly others have noticed this too') is that logic has been able to make knowledge consistent, but it is the diffusion and thus this knowledge put into action that is a part of what I'm saying. And the knowledge of what is possible 'government v. non-government' has significantly changed recently (by recent I mean in the last 200 years). The knowledge in various fields, even outside of politics, has changed. Logic can only work with and show the consistency of the current knowledge available. In abbreviated form, logic simply shows A is A. But what is A - that has to do with understanding epistemology. And the knowledge of A sometimes changes. And when that knowledge of A changes, then logic can work within this new theory and apply consistency. Logic is not knowledge, but without humans having the ability to know that A is A, thus, to point out that A can't be non-A, then knowledge would be worthless as A could be anything, sometimes B, C, D, etc... and nobody could focus and connect the dots.
I think this is what you are saying and I agree and haven't otherwise: What is logical obviously may never be enacted by humans, but what logic will show is what is impossible and what is possible. And what is possible changes due to the knowledge within the premise to be deducted into a conclusion. The premise can involve various subjects (s) and predicates (p) and those s's and p's can change depending on what is known. But new knowledge doesn't alter what has already been shown to be certain, in other words, once a deduction shows universality then that principle is understood and is certain. But the theories that any principle applies too can flux and thereby a change in theory would need to incorporate known principles or those principles would need to be incorporated into another theory far different, but it's not the principles that change it's the theory, in other words, what we know about the principles in what relational system (theory) in the world that can change. So what is logically possible may never come to pass, but what was known in the past to be logically possible is limited by the knowledge of the day. So what is logically possible today can be newly recognized based on new knowledge. I think you are focusing too much on the logic and not enough on the knowledge (which can definitely vary from person to person and that's were the debate can actually take place).
z1235: wilderness:Well, you are not arguing in the realm of logic... ... It's this brute force level that government operates so no logic will penetrate the mentality of people that psychologically defend it - not logically defend it cause their mentality of defense is not upon a good argument but upon a lower level of existence. There's no single "realm of logic".
There's no single "realm of logic".
Yes there is a single 'realm of logic'. You might be surprised what polylogic has to do with.
z1235: By assuming different starting axioms,
By assuming different starting axioms,
Yes. That can happen. But starting from a known axiom, for instance negative liberty as we both agree upon it's conclusion, the same conclusion is reached by all people using logic.
z1235: ...different people can ALL use logic to arrive to different conclusions. It's a tad presumptious to accuse all those who had arrived to a conclusion different form yours of being "illogical" or of residing in some "lower" realm of human existence.
...different people can ALL use logic to arrive to different conclusions. It's a tad presumptious to accuse all those who had arrived to a conclusion different form yours of being "illogical" or of residing in some "lower" realm of human existence.
There is only one logical conclusion for one premise. It is obvious that individuals that don't follow through on what is logical are being illogical. Why they are being illogical varies due to conditions that stop them from following through on what is logical. Coercion being the main contributor to stopping what is logical from happening.
The lower or base-level experiences of humans is a valid generalization rooted in maturation and thus the developmental stages and education of an individual. A person that supportively operates on appealing to fear-mongering biologically is inhibiting reason and a sustained experience of fear degenerates logical foresight and reasonableness. 'Fight or flight' is a biological experience that involuntarily inhibits deliberate action and causes the creature to reflexively 'fight or flight'. But such an activity is not sustainable and too much of this kind of experience leads to a stressful lifestyle in which reasonable deliberate actions are not exercised very much due to this involuntary action replacing it. Without having the conditions to exercise deliberate reason the creature not being able to spend time on lower time preference activities thereby doesn't have the time to exercise foresight, build capital, save for a rainy day, and will have an increased chance of being left out in the cold as the benefits of exercising reason brings insightfulness and clarity to what is happening in the world. A good leader is couragous, calm, and comes up with all kinds of ideas on what to do as such a person is experiencing the benefits of spending time with the intellect rather than 'fighting and fighting' all or most of the time, comparatively.
z1235: I like to think that I am VERY logical and I do make a conscious effort at making good arguments -- I don't take accusations to the contrary lightly. I say this only FYI (in case you needed it in writing). Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion.
I like to think that I am VERY logical and I do make a conscious effort at making good arguments -- I don't take accusations to the contrary lightly. I say this only FYI (in case you needed it in writing). Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion.
I admire your persistence. I suggest you understand the difference between knowledge (epistemology) and logic. Take it with a grain of salt or what have you, but understand I care about people and would love for others to understand and I'm definitely open to understanding too the viewpoints of other people. There are definitions to concepts that do need adhered to in order to have effective communication.
good day
z1235:Knight, I want to have productive arguments with you
Knight_of_BAAWA: z1235:Knight, I want to have productive arguments with youThen think before you post. Ask yourself if what you're posting could have any logical problems.
Well he is, but he's taking the risk of starting an argument then follows that up with asking for efficiency.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then think before you post. Ask yourself if what you're posting could have any logical problems.
Your suggestion that whoever disagrees with you must not be thinking leaves us with only three possible implications:
1. I'm an idiot (as only an idiot would consciously avoid thinking before posting something)
2. You're an ass (for making such a suggestion)
3. You're an idiot (for suggesting something like that without previously thinking)
Now why would you ever make a suggestion with such a limited ('lose-lose') set of possible implications, and how conducive do you think it would be to a fruitful discussion? Wouldn't simply tackling the perceived illogical arguments be a better line of action?
z1235:Your suggestion that whoever disagrees with you must not be thinking
This is exacly the problem, people don't see the state as an entity which follows rational rules. They do not see it as a group of individuals, but as some sort of phantom spirit that is the collective will of the people, devoid of rational rules and in posession of its own rules which cannot be replicated by any other institution but for other states.
Excellent post.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Once again: you didn't think before you posted.
Must be #2 then. Thanks for clearing all doubt.
The Late Andrew Ryan: This is exacly the problem, people don't see the state as an entity which follows rational rules. They do not see it as a group of individuals, but as some sort of phantom spirit that is the collective will of the people, devoid of rational rules and in posession of its own rules which cannot be replicated by any other institution but for other states. Excellent post.
Government is a god. They build temples and monuments to prove it.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
So basically "who watches the watchmen?"
Didn't you know that 200 year old documents will stop any possible government abuses and is totally fool proof.... See, we've got this all worked out.
The Late Andrew Ryan: This is exacly the problem, people don't see the state as an entity which follows rational rules. They do not see it as a group of individuals, but as some sort of phantom spirit that is the collective will of the people, devoid of rational rules and in posession of its own rules which cannot be replicated by any other institution but for other states.Excellent post.
This is exacly the problem, people don't see the state as an entity which follows rational rules. They do not see it as a group of individuals, but as some sort of phantom spirit that is the collective will of the people, devoid of rational rules and in posession of its own rules which cannot be replicated by any other institution but for other states.Excellent post.
thanks.
I think also the government does not work on the level of reason. What I'm saying is the government's only necessary existence is to serve on the base-level (fight or flight actions with no use of foresight/logic). That's why arguments with 'defenders of gov't' have them wondering 'who's going to stop the bad people'. The arguments with 'defenders as gov't' are not about the logical points in the argument but about 'who's going to stop corruption'. The logical points are glossed over and usually simply ignored as their psyche interpretation of government is some kind of superhero or "phantom spirit" defending the innocent from bad people. The government serves the people in those events that are of base-level actions.
So it is exactly what you said Late Andrew, but I add that their counter-arguments are of the the realm that is "devoid of rational rules". Meaning the person I argue against that is defending the gov't isn't focused on the logical points but only on the disappearance of their god protector that will stop the bad people and so they only counter argue 'who's going to stop the fraud, corruption, and dangers of the world.
excellent insightful comment Late Andrew. That helped me think this through more.
Stranger: Government is a god. They build temples and monuments to prove it.
I add that those temples and monuments are built to not only honor their state but to appease the demons. The nightmares and phantoms that creep in the night whichever is the latest fad boggieman. These temples of mighty granite were the criminals of the gov't, usually victim-less crimes, are dragged to such montrous buildings that stand tall with carvings of another era or psyche with a seemingly impenetrable exterior material that says in and of itself, 'don't worry this will last through the heaviest of storms not exclusively the economic and winter kind'. The cop brings in the criminal of the gov't up to the man in the black robe which this robe has this magical power that ushers a demand by it simply appearing upon his enterance into the room. Such a demand of instant respect by all staring at him and some even saying, "Yes your honor". The politican outside at another similarly colossal structure waves his hands above the crowd that remind back to an ancient socery hand waving time that all, even the hand waver himself, have long forgotten. The appeasment of their fears with magical notions and promises that all will be well as long as he is allowed to continue solving all the worlds problems so they can sleep better at night... a fairy tale bedtime story for the masses.
I'm glad you introduced this into this thread it sheds so much truth to what the meaning of this thread involves.
bloomj31:so basically "who watches the watchmen?"
not so much that, but what do the "watchmen" do? Why is there a government and what does the government deal with, what's it's job? I think everything the government does involves dealing with human base-level actions. So thereby arguments against 'defenders of gov't' are not about logical points, though the anti-statist may be bringing up some very valid logical points. The 'defender of gov't' flies passed those points in the argument and directly wonders 'who's going to stop all the bad people', thus, the gov't is present to deal with the fight or flight base-level actions that individual humans potentially make. That's what defenders of gov't see the gov'ts role as and thereby wonder who's going to stop corruption, fraud, so-called illegitmate power hungry people, etc... obviously all of these are defined by the gov't via legislation, executive orders, etc... as to what constitutes these. As you pointed out before, politics is about power and not, so much so, good philosophy, economics, etc.... That's what I'm saying with a slight twist. The gov't only works and operates on the ill-advised power-level.
wilderness: not so much that, but what do the "watchmen" do? Why is there a government and what does the government deal with, what's it's job? I think everything the government does involves dealing with human base-level actions. So thereby arguments against 'defenders of gov't' are not about logical points, though the anti-statist may be bringing up some very valid logical points. The 'defender of gov't' flies passed those points in the argument and directly wonders 'who's going to stop all the bad people', thus, the gov't is present to deal with the fight or flight base-level actions that individual humans potentially make. That's what defenders of gov't see the gov'ts role as and thereby wonder who's going to stop corruption, fraud, so-called illegitmate power hungry people, etc... obviously all of these are defined by the gov't via legislation, executive orders, etc... as to what constitutes these. As you pointed out before, politics is about politics and not so much so good philosophy, economics, etc.... That's what I'm saying with a slight twist. The gov't only works and operates on the ill-advised power-level.
not so much that, but what do the "watchmen" do? Why is there a government and what does the government deal with, what's it's job? I think everything the government does involves dealing with human base-level actions. So thereby arguments against 'defenders of gov't' are not about logical points, though the anti-statist may be bringing up some very valid logical points. The 'defender of gov't' flies passed those points in the argument and directly wonders 'who's going to stop all the bad people', thus, the gov't is present to deal with the fight or flight base-level actions that individual humans potentially make. That's what defenders of gov't see the gov'ts role as and thereby wonder who's going to stop corruption, fraud, so-called illegitmate power hungry people, etc... obviously all of these are defined by the gov't via legislation, executive orders, etc... as to what constitutes these. As you pointed out before, politics is about politics and not so much so good philosophy, economics, etc.... That's what I'm saying with a slight twist. The gov't only works and operates on the ill-advised power-level.
I think you're right that the desire for government reaches outside of logic and reason and lives in the emotional base of humans. The desire for a protector, to have someone or something watching over us, taking care of us, etc. The problem is always that the people we elect to govern us are in fact just men. So they are just as vulnerable to corruption and error and illogic and irrationality as anyone else. I often find myself struggling with this conundrum myself. If we are going to be watched over by watchmen, who is going to watch the watchmen?
wilderness:The cop brings in the criminal of the gov't up to the man in the black robe which this robe has this magical power that ushers a demand by it simply appearing upon his enterance into the room. Such a demand of instant respect by all staring at him and some even saying, "Yes your honor". The politican outside at another similarly colossal structure waves his hands above the crowd that remind back to an ancient socery hand waving time that all, even the hand waver himself, have long forgotten. The appeasment of their fears with magical notions and promises that all will be well as long as he is allowed to continue solving all the worlds problems so they can sleep better at night... a fairy tale bedtime story for the masses.
Honestly, this is a magical fairytale of your own creation that decides to utter ignore the history, and traditions of the legal system rather than address the so that it can create a fairytale out of it for your own appeasement. Really, its pathetic.
wilderness:this robe has this magical power that ushers a demand by it simply appearing upon his enterance into the room. Such a demand of instant respect by all staring at him and some even saying, "Yes your honor".
Did you bother analyzing the fact that the robe is a tradition evolving from English tradition, and "Your Honor" is nothing more than an old reference style and that the reasons these have not changed is that the judicial system is not to be tampered with, but to bloom from centuries of judicial tradition. The fact that such customs are maintained is a very potent symbol of the fact that the law ought not to change by the whims of government, and politicians.
wilderness:he appeasment of their fears with magical notions and promises that all will be well as long as he is allowed to continue solving all the worlds problems so they can sleep better at night... a fairy tale bedtime story for the masses.
Honestly, have you ever bothered to pay attention to current events? People do not have such reverence for the judicial system, rather they are very harsh critics at time, and do not sit still when a judge issues a decree that they do not agree with. For instance, look at how the judicial system of California legalized gay marriage only to have a statewide initiate ban it.
Instead of unmasking a popular fairytale, you have create one of your own so that you may go to sleep at night better, a fairytale that does not bother to actually base itself on reality.
laminustacitus: wilderness:The cop brings in the criminal of the gov't up to the man in the black robe which this robe has this magical power that ushers a demand by it simply appearing upon his enterance into the room. Such a demand of instant respect by all staring at him and some even saying, "Yes your honor". The politican outside at another similarly colossal structure waves his hands above the crowd that remind back to an ancient socery hand waving time that all, even the hand waver himself, have long forgotten. The appeasment of their fears with magical notions and promises that all will be well as long as he is allowed to continue solving all the worlds problems so they can sleep better at night... a fairy tale bedtime story for the masses. Honestly, this is a magical fairytale of your own creation that decides to utter ignore the history, and traditions of the legal system rather than address the so that it can create a fairytale out of it for your own appeasement. Really, its pathetic.
lol - i underlined and bolded it for you.
laminustacitus: wilderness:this robe has this magical power that ushers a demand by it simply appearing upon his enterance into the room. Such a demand of instant respect by all staring at him and some even saying, "Yes your honor". Did you bother analyzing the fact that the robe is a tradition evolving from English tradition, and "Your Honor" is nothing more than an old reference style and that the reasons these have not changed is that the judicial system is not to be tampered with, but to bloom from centuries of judicial tradition. The fact that such customs are maintained is a very potent symbol of the fact that the law ought not to change by the whims of government, and politicians.
yes. that is the point of the symbols and don't forget the granite buildings that I mentioned. "...not to change by the whims..." as you put it. Those giza pyramids and mummies are still going, and going, and going...
laminustacitus: wilderness:he appeasment of their fears with magical notions and promises that all will be well as long as he is allowed to continue solving all the worlds problems so they can sleep better at night... a fairy tale bedtime story for the masses. Honestly, have you ever bothered to pay attention to current events? People do not have such reverence for the judicial system, rather they are very harsh critics at time, and do not sit still when a judge issues a decree that they do not agree with. For instance, look at how the judicial system of California legalized gay marriage only to have a statewide initiate ban it.
good point and such an excellent example of yet again of what the gov't involves itself with - sex.
laminustacitus: Instead of unmasking a popular fairytale, you have create one of your own so that you may go to sleep at night better, a fairytale that does not bother to actually base itself on reality.
Well, I did call it a bedtime story for the masses, appealing to stupidity, emotions, etc... as bloom in his last post pointed out very well.
Your appeal to reality is only the more reason to get the control hungers out of the hands of humans. Humans given the tools of bad habits plus a tendency to think they have the holy grail of reality and everybody else is "pathetic" is that fire and brimstone upon the Washington Mount. In a position to put that to use with powers amassing consolidation and control would-be dictators stamping their image of reality upon everybody with coercion find a home away from home. Know it all ego-maniacs climb high up the ladder of where base-level attachments are nurtured and endless cravings are not the limit but the way to excel in power.
I share this with you lam. since you share at least this part with me:
"...and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, 'All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me'." (The Bible; KJV)
bloomj31: I think you're right that the desire for government reaches outside of logic and reason and lives in the emotional base of humans. The desire for a protector, to have someone or something watching over us, taking care of us, etc. The problem is always that the people we elect to govern us are in fact just men. So they are just as vulnerable to corruption and error and illogic and irrationality as anyone else. I often find myself struggling with this conundrum myself. If we are going to be watched over by watchmen, who is going to watch the watchmen?
Would you say the nature of government, unfortunately, encourages this more than discouraging this? ("this" meaning that which "reaches... emotional base of humans") Could you explain and maybe expand on this a bit?
wilderness: Would you say the nature of government, unfortunately, encourages this more than discouraging this? ("this" meaning that which "reaches... emotional base of humans") Could you explain and maybe expand on this a bit?
The way I think of it is that government is just a reflection of human nature. I think government is a construct of human design that teaches me a lot about what it means to be human. So the nature of government, a paternalistic institution that functions mainly to protect man from each other, is a reflection of something very deep within the human psyche. And that is fear of the unknown, whether it be an unknown person, event, time or threat. The people who love government tend to think that it exists to protect them. The people who hate government think the government does more to harm them than help them. To the first group, it makes perfect sense for lots of things to be controlled/watched over/provided by the government. To the second group, all those things are wishful thinking. To the second group, they're a trojan horse. So I think people's feelings about government can tell us a lot about their worldview and what they think of human nature.
Fear and hope and greed....these are common human emotions and I think they are the motivation behind a lot of the structures man creates. In my mind, government is a combination of all three and it feeds on those emotions.
bloomj31:The way I think of it is that government is just a reflection of human nature. I think government is a construct of human design that teaches me a lot about what it means to be human. So the nature of government, a paternalistic institution that functions mainly to protect man from each other, is a reflection of something very deep within the human psyche.
The dealings of or need of paternalism is case by case bases, would you agree? I'm not arguing against gov't directly as I don't want to devolve from my OP.
bloomj31:And that is fear of the unknown, whether it be an unknown person, event, time or threat.
good point. i think the gov't is in place due to this too as it operates on this base-level sphere. I think what else i'm trying to point out as well is because the gov't is involved with dealing with fear (for one) that the gov't is thereby susceptible to what fear does. The gov't isn't fully armored by what it deals with and since the gov't (the individuals working closely in the gov't) deals with nasty things it's all the much harder to withstand such nasty things from penetrating the very institution that tries to stop them. In other words the gov't is apart and inseparable from the sphere of nasty things. Another way of putting this is since the gov't is trying to stop the "fear of the unknown" those 'things in the dark' then the gov't is constantly crying foul and shouting out threats, dangers, etc... It's (the people that work within it obviously) always beating the alarms of something. thoughts?
bloomj31:The people who love government tend to think that it exists to protect them.
I agree. This is why when I argue with a 'defender of gov't' their appeal is not to the logical points but to 'who will protect us from the bad guys'.
bloomj31:The people who hate government think the government does more to harm them than help them. To the first group, it makes perfect sense for lots of things to be controlled/watched over/provided by the government. To the second group, all those things are wishful thinking. To the second group, they're a trojan horse. So I think people's feelings about government can tell us a lot about their worldview and what they think of human nature.
That last sentence is very insightful. It does all seem to boil down to for 'defenders of gov't' their perception of human nature, ie. the chaotic aspect, when it comes to what the gov't is here for. It's that effort to control pandora's box that the appeal to gov't is made in. Control what is feared. I would say any call to control is due to the caller's own fear.
bloomj31:Fear and hope and greed....these are common human emotions and I think they are the motivation behind a lot of the structures man creates. In my mind, government is a combination of all three and it feeds on those emotions.
Hope seems to be due to fear and greed. Hope is what some people have in their expections to get out of the pit of fear and greed. I don't think gov't actually gives hope, meaning I don't know anything the gov't has done that offered hope in and of itself. It seems hope is always offered by gov't due to the gov'ts own dealings with fear and greed. I think there is a slight nuance to that. something i need to think about a bit more. What do you think?
For example, the appeal to compassion, ie. welfare, humanitarian aid, etc... that gov't also offers but that again is to retrieve the needs to fight off another fear, ie. people are not able to get their needs met because of bad people (evil capitalists, etc...). I can't think of examples in which gov't people are advocating a flight from something. It seems to be always a fight of something, not too sure, again I'll need to think on that more too. thoughts?
Also would you say that somebody that is always trying to control something beyond some minimal criteria, would such a person be the rising candidate for gov't work?
Alright, I want to try to add some personal context to what I'm saying here in an effort to aid this thought process.
Since I was a little kid, I've always had issues with authority figures. Always. My parents have also disappointed me time and time again by putting their own selfish interests in front of their responsibilities to me as a son. Any time someone tries to tell me now that they should be given power to look out for my best interests, I immediately feel fear. Fear of being betrayed. It's just an instinctive reaction at this point. Thus my skepticism of government. In particular, paternalistic government.
So my tendency to distrust government is rooted in a lifetime of personal experience with authority figures and the feeling of being misled and misinformed by people I was told I was supposed to be able to trust.
People who have never had experiences like I have probably don't feel at all like I do and furthermore do not share many of my suspicions, skepticism or doubt. Thomas Sowell called it the "unrestrained vision." It's the idea that with the right people or right system or whatever that all the world's ills can be gotten rid of. Poverty, war, hatred, etc. I am of the restrained vision, I believe these things are a part of the human condition they cannot be gotten rid of anymore than the human need to breathe. They are innate qualities of humanity.
Government, for better or worse, is, in my mind, a manifestation of some innate quality of humanity and a product of human fallibility and the understanding that people are not always rational, reasonable or logical. I think there will always be governments and so I do not imagine a world without government but a world where we can have an honest discussion about these topics without it becoming an ideological shouting match.
I say this because government, as a product of humanity, is just as much at risk of being corrupted as any individual. It's just that when ideology becomes the norm, both sides become intellectually dishonest and pretend to have one simple solution.
Some people really do trust the government. I don't. But I also don't trust man to behave without some form of government. This is what I think makes this issue so hard to navigate: there is no answer, no permanent solution. It's just an endless struggle.
bloomj31:This is what I think makes this issue so hard to navigate: there is no answer, no permanent solution. It's just an endless struggle.
I second this.
bloomj31: It's the idea that with the right people or right system or whatever that all the world's ills can be gotten rid of. Poverty, war, hatred, etc. I am of the restrained vision, I believe these things are a part of the human condition they cannot be gotten rid of anymore than the human need to breathe. They are innate qualities of humanity.
It's the idea that with the right people or right system or whatever that all the world's ills can be gotten rid of. Poverty, war, hatred, etc. I am of the restrained vision, I believe these things are a part of the human condition they cannot be gotten rid of anymore than the human need to breathe. They are innate qualities of humanity.
There are also people that don't exploit this aspect of him or her self. I know of people, including myself, that deal with fear without the need for an authority figure outside of my friends and family, to step in and stop me. I find the government to be a spin-off of that part of me that inhibits fear from maximally eroding my ability to live a life without a government stepping in to stop me. The gov't aspect seems to be that part of human nature that inhibits fear from taking over and vacating personal responsibility. Meaning it is the ability of a human to do such on their own, but some people are not so gov't has roots in operating within the 'flight or fight' sphere. Confronting the nightmares of people that overcome their own ill-wills. It is a form of forgetting oneself.
bloomj31: Government, for better or worse, is, in my mind, a manifestation of some innate quality of humanity and a product of human fallibility and the understanding that people are not always rational, reasonable or logical. I think there will always be governments and so I do not imagine a world without government but a world where we can have an honest discussion about these topics without it becoming an ideological shouting match.
Only logic could make a statement about what is possible or not; contingent about future events. Logic also shows that it is possible to not have a gov't. I understand everything else you stated but I don't think "always be governments" is grounded in anything but opinion. I respect you opinion and since it is just as possible to have no gov't, contingently speaking, it is also possible that gov't will continue indefinitely. I think this though is a side-topic not directly related to the OP.
bloomj31: I say this because government, as a product of humanity, is just as much at risk of being corrupted as any individual. It's just that when ideology becomes the norm, both sides become intellectually dishonest and pretend to have one simple solution. Some people really do trust the government. I don't. But I also don't trust man to behave without some form of government. This is what I think makes this issue so hard to navigate: there is no answer, no permanent solution. It's just an endless struggle.
I say this because government, as a product of humanity, is just as much at risk of being corrupted as any individual. It's just that when ideology becomes the norm, both sides become intellectually dishonest and pretend to have one simple solution. Some people really do trust the government. I don't. But I also don't trust man to behave without some form of government. This is what I think makes this issue so hard to navigate: there is no answer, no permanent solution. It's just an endless struggle.
Yes. I understand the gov't is an outgrowth of the human psyche amidst the universe - what else could it be - so that's a given. I'm focused on the level in which the gov't operates and thereby also flutters in the winds of unhibituated impulses. Gov't being of the individual psyche, many ideas by many people over the 1000's of years, trying to deal with corruption. But when the gov't itself has no grounding by any logical, moral, or what have you, anchor to keep itself steady and focused then it has no chance against the might of corruption, don't you think? I mean what keeps the gov't from becoming corrupt if it has no counter force?
thanks for the discussion. this is interesting.
bloomj31:My parents have also disappointed me time and time again by putting their own selfish interests in front of their responsibilities to me as a son.
Everybody follows their self interest. They also have no positive obligations towards you.
bloomj31:It's the idea that with the right people or right system or whatever that all the world's ills can be gotten rid of.
Anarcho-Capitalism is not a system.
bloomj31:They are innate qualities of humanity.
Except they're not. Self interest is however, and that is what you are seeing play out - a group of individuals following their self interest, have implemented a scam whereby they can be parasites and live of the work of others. They've convinced people like you, it's in their self interest to have government around - there is nothing natural about it.
bloomj31:I say this because government, as a product of humanity
How collectivist. Individuals act. "Humanity" does not.
bloomj31:It's just an endless struggle.
It is, if you believe government is inevitable - but it's not.
They're my parents, Conza, I think they have responsibilities.
bloom,
to give a little background on my perspective.
I grew up with my grandfather telling me stories of living in a mountain village with plenty of good food. The only gov't was a policeman that came maybe once a year from Rome to check out what was going on in the region. Their village was high up in a mountain valley on the central-eastern part of Italy. And when the policeman came some people would gather in the place to drink lots of wine and listen to the news he shared of the going-on's in Rome and of his travels. He was more a news person than a policeman to them. He came to America and the first meal he had was a hot dog at a stand in New York City and thought it was disguisting and asked his father when they would be going back home to where there was good food. Of course though Mussolini was why he came here. People always needing to move out of the way of control freaks.
Even as I grew up our focus was on family and I actually hardly ever thought that there was a gov't in the U.S. Then in my teen years I heard more and more about politics cause of the TV and it was easy to see politicans lied and it was all stupid. I never have been into talking about politics as much as I have been of recent when I first came to this forum in all honesty. And that's because I use my own mind and don't readily understand why some people need a father or mother figure in another person. I grew up learning more about spirituality, farming, family stories, good books, appreciation of the arts (I grew up learning how to play the piano, took some drawing classes, I sometimes write fictional stories for the fun of it, etc...) and most definitely the woods, ie. late teen years is when I began to hunt, fish, backpack, etc....but I had always walked in the woods from a very, very early age. I feel that I live without gov't all the time and the moments that the gov't shows up in my life is simply to take something away from me and to mess things up.