Ok, let's go back to the thief for a moment. You say his claim to your property is illegitimate. But he has the threat of violence and presumably the willingness to use violence to achieve his ends. You contest his claim on the grounds that you don't believe he has the legitimate right to take your stuff. What sort of power is backing your claim?
I like to think of Autolykos as a badass. Therefore, he matches the thief with equal violence. Now what?
Then he overthrows the government.
All by himself, huh? Autolykos must be really tough!
bloomj31:Ok, let's go back to the thief for a moment. You say his claim to your property is illegitimate. But he has the threat of violence and presumably the willingness to use violence to achieve his ends. You contest his claim on the grounds that you don't believe he has the legitimate right to take your stuff. What sort of power is backing your claim?
You've already asked this question. If you recall, I answered earlier that whatever (if any) power I possess to back my claim is irrelevant to the legitimacy I impute to it.
Take a look at the Latin phrase in my signature. Translated, it says, "Power does not beget its own authority".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
And yet it does.
Am I to take this to mean that you're disputing my statement that whatever (if any) power I possess to back my claim is irrelevant to the legitimacy I impute to it?
Otherwise, how are you defining "authority"? And are you aware of the distinction in Roman law between potestas and auctoritas?
That's right, I'm saying that your powerlessness is entirely relevant to your claim. You seem to think that your money is yours. That your stuff is yours. Even if you can't protect it. Even if no one will protect it for you. How is it then yours?
And no, I was not aware of those terms, I just looked them up.
Now that I know what they mean I see we're coming to the idea of "consent of the governed."
bloomj31: That's right, I'm saying that your powerlessness is entirely relevant to your claim. You seem to think that your money is yours. That your stuff is yours. Even if you can't protect it. Even if no one will protect it for you. How is it then yours? And no, I was not aware of those terms, I just looked them up.
Are you aware that other animals make claims of ownership too? The difference between humans and other animals is that animals must resolve their disputes with violence. They do not argue.
The threat of force is not the only relevant aspect of legitimacy, justice, and property.
gotlucky: They do not argue. The threat of force is not the only relevant aspect of legitimacy, justice and property.
They do not argue.
The threat of force is not the only relevant aspect of legitimacy, justice and property.
I don't understand how you can talk about arguing (mediation/arbitration) without talking about the threat of force.
The threat of force is not the motivating factor behind absolutely every argument. Anyway, my point is that you ignore the arguing factor in disputes and only look at the threat of violence factor. It is not the case that all disputes are resolved by violence. That is the point of law - to resolve disputes without violence. The threat of violence is often in the air, but that does not make it the only relevant factor.
So I'm quite puzzled as to why you believe might makes right.
bloomj31:That's right, I'm saying that your powerlessness is entirely relevant to your claim. You seem to think that your money is yours. That your stuff is yours. Even if you can't protect it. Even if no one will protect it for you. How is it then yours?
I, for one, don't see possession and ownership being the same thing. Just because someone possesses something doesn't mean that possession is legitimate.
On another note, you've looked into the is-ought problem, haven't you? If not, I recommend you do so.
bloomj31:And no, I was not aware of those terms, I just looked them up. Now that I know what they mean I see we're coming to the idea of "consent of the governed."
If I understand you correctly, then I disagree. Potestas can be translated as "power" - i.e. raw physical ability - whereas auctoritas, while it has a direct descendant in the English word "authority", I think can be translated better as "legitimacy" in modern-day English usage. So essentially potestas is the "is" and auctoritas is the "ought".
I'm sorry but this quote function is completely broken, I cannot seem to segment the questions and responses in the way that I would like to.
Surely it's not difficult for you to put quotation marks around my statements, and even affix my name to them, if you so desire.
I have structured my replies in the exact format that is supposed to work and it still says "non matching quote blocks in post."
That's happened to me before, actually. I suggest selecting your entire post, copying it, and then pasting it into a new reply. IIRC, that worked for me before.
gotlucky: The threat of force is not the motivating factor behind every argument.
gotlucky: That is the point of law-to resolve disputes without violence. The threat of violence is often in the air ut that does not make it the only relevant factor.
gotlucky: So I'm quite puzzled as to why you believe might makes right.
bloomj31:I believe that might makes relevant. It's pointless to me to entertain questions of right and wrong in the absence of the power to enforce such values.
That means it's pointless for you to entertain questions of right and wrong, ever. So logically you wouldn't complain if, for example, I came up to you and punched you in the face. (No, that's not a threat.)
autolykos: That means it's pointless for you to entertain questions of right and wrong, ever.
That means it's pointless for you to entertain questions of right and wrong, ever.
I am not entirely powerless. Neither are you.
autolykos: So logically you wouldn't complain if, for example, I came up to you and punched you in the face.
So logically you wouldn't complain if, for example, I came up to you and punched you in the face.
I think I might have the power to do something about that.
bloomj31:I am not entirely powerless. Neither are you.
Thanks for proving my point. Entertaining questions of what's in your power to do is not at all the same as entertaining questions of right and wrong.
bloomj31:I think I might have the power to do something about that.
No, you wouldn't. I would've already punched you in the face - it would already be in the past. So it sounds to me like you're implicitly agreeing with me that you wouldn't complain if I did that. In other words, you'd think it would be right for me to do so, because I was able to do it.
bloomj31: Yes it is. We argue because it's often cheaper than fighting.
Yes it is. We argue because it's often cheaper than fighting.
Really? So in every dispute you have ever had, you threatened violence against the other party? I know I haven't. For example, if a friend of mine is not coughing up his fair share of the bill at a restaurant, I do not threaten him with violence over the dispute. He either pays, or if he keeps this kind of behavior up, he will not remain my friend.
Arguing is cheaper than fighting. I do agree with that. But violence is not looming over absolutely every dispute.
bloomj31: The threat of violence is always in the air. Resolutions reached through ADR are binding in a court of law.
The threat of violence is always in the air. Resolutions reached through ADR are binding in a court of law.
No, it is not, as previously demonstrated. Perhaps there are places where resolutions reached through ADR are binding in a court of law, but what of it? What's your point?
bloomj31: I think I might have the power to do something about that.
No. I'm pretty sure that you established a few posts above that Autolykos can single-handedly take down governments. I'd like to see you try and stop Autolykos against just you.
I think you're confusing my position with something akin to moral nihilism or amoralism.
I have not said that you can't make up your own values or that moral values in general are irrelevant.
bloomj31:I think you're confusing my position with something akin to moral nihilism or amoralism.
Then I don't think you've sufficiently distinguished (for my purposes) your position from moral nihilism and amoralism.
bloomj31:I have not said that you can't make up your own values or that moral values in general are irrelevant.
You haven't said that explicitly, but your position is entirely descriptive - there's no normativity to it whatsoever. So either we're talking past each other or you're amoral.
Every acting being has a morality, that is, has preferences and acts on those preferences. The ultimate end which lies behind every action is that end which is never a means to any other end - this ultimate end can be called satisfaction, happiness or pleasure. It must not be misunderstood that the ultimate end is a particular kind of pleasure (such as of eating delicious food). The correlation is formal - what we mean by satisfaction is that end which every acting being is always seeking. It is a tautology.
The problem of morality is reduced to a technical problem: what is the correct means to the attainment of one's ultimate end (satisfaction)? Mises avoided discussing the ultimate end (there is one section where he mentions Epicurean ataraxia in passing but that's as close as he gets) because he didn't need it but praxeological theory is perfectly consistent with this form of analysis.
People confuse social order (norms) with morality. This is forgivable because, by far, the majority of the problems associated with attaining one's satisfaction are social in nature. It's an easy thing to build a shelter in order to get relief from the elements (satisfaction) - the branches of a tree will never retaliate against you. But it's a lot more difficult to attain satisfaction by means of social relations - just think of parents, friends, spouses, employers, employees, bill-collectors, police, judges, Presidents, etc. These are all people and they are all imposing their will upon you and resisting the imposition of your will upon them. Unlike tree branches, they have a memory, they can connive and they retaliate or even aggress.
Just like there are right and wrong ways to build a shelter, there are right and wrong ways to interact with other human beings. The end in either case is always the same: my satisfaction. The majority of what people mean when they talk about "right and wrong" or "morality" is precisely this question of right and wrong ways to interact with other human beings. The key difference is that most discussion of morality leaves out the question to what end? The end is my satisfaction and rightness/wrongness of course of action is to be judged with respect to its suitability for bringing about my satisfaction. How should I treat others? In whatever way brings about my satisfaction.
And almost every thing in life which is a means to your ultimate end (satisfaction) is entangled with the social order. If you want to cook yourself a meal, you will need groceries, to get the groceries, you will need money, to get money you will need to sell something you have (perhaps your labor) and to sell something, you will need to find a buyer (human being, a social entity). Suddenly, just cooking yourself a simple meal involves people and is now a complicated matter of social interactions.
Some people might object that this moral principle is simple-minded and would justify murder if you're someone who gets a kick out of killing, for example. But this objection (falsely) imagines that the only thing stopping people from going on murderous rampages is the will to do so. The fact is that people push back on us depending on how we behave (reciprocation, retaliation, etc.). They obstruct our choices (deadbolts, security guards) and impose costs on us (lawsuits, bill collectors) depeding on how we act. Of course, these are only the gross means by which people push and pull against one another, the most sublte and pervasive forms of push and pull are invisible: guilt, fear, love, shame, etc. The internal wiring in our brain permits us to impose intangible penalties on one another and it is these intangible penalties that are the warp and weave of the social order.
Clayton -
gotlucky: Really, so in every dispute you ever had, you threatened violence against the other party?
gotlucky: No, it is not, as previously demonstrated.
gotlucky: Perhaps there are places where resolutions reached through ADR are binding in a court of law, but what of it? What's your point?
autolykos:You haven't said that explicitly, but your position is entirely descriptive- there's no normativity to it whatsoever. So either we're talking past each other or you're amoral.
bloomj31: Yes. If not explicitly then implicitly.
Yes. If not explicitly then implicitly.
You are a sick person. There is no need to threaten people over a wide range of disputes. You must be easily upset if you need to threaten people whenever you disagree.
bloomj31: What demonstration?
What demonstration?
The one where I stated that I have been involved in a number of disputes where neither I nor the other party felt it necessary to threaten violence, implicitly or explicitly. I even gave an example of such a case.
bloomj31: My point is that dispute resolution is done in the "shadow of the law." The participants understand that violating the agreement can bring legal consequences.
My point is that dispute resolution is done in the "shadow of the law." The participants understand that violating the agreement can bring legal consequences.
Okay. So now you believe that it is possible for a person to take another's property illegitimately (i.e. a thief who steals)?
^ I suggest you all stop feeding the troll.
gotlucky: You are a sick person. There is no need to threaten people over a wide range of disputes.
gotlucky: The one where I stated I have been involved in a number of disputes where neither I nor the other party felt it necessary to threaten violence, implicitly or explicitly. I even gave an example of such a case
gotlucky: Okay. So now you believe that it is possible for a person to take another's property illegimiately?
bloomj31:I said that might makes relevant. What does might make relevant? It makes values relevant. And might can come in many forms. Might can also be contested. Human might that is.
And might can come in many forms. Might can also be contested. Human might that is.
Then you forego any notion of legitimacy, which makes you amoral in my book.
He isn't saying anything crazy, he is making a point on law / legal theory - which is a mainstream, obvious, and uncontroversial view the way I am reading bloom. Unfortunatley he ma be a 1 trick pony as he seems to be bringing the topic up in a limited manner (reading current extant US laws in a fairly literal way, and just focusing on that category) where it doesn't belong - such as a thread dealing with sociology, etc; which may be the cause of the thread derailments
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Are you amoral too, then, William?
autolykos:Then you forego any notion of legitimacy, which makes you amoral in my book.
You haven't explained what - if any - notion of legitimacy you hold onto. And apparently you're categorically refusing to do that, for reasons unknown (or maybe not so unknown). What other conclusion do you expect me to draw? If you actually come out and say that you're equating the words "relevance" with "legitimacy", then you are indeed a believer in "might makes right" - you just mask that belief by not using the word "relevant" instead of "right". Same difference.
Look, I'm sorry for derailing this thread. I knew this would happen.
bloomj31: Yes there is. Otherwise they don't take me seriously. Which brings me to your "demonstration."
Yes there is. Otherwise they don't take me seriously. Which brings me to your "demonstration."
You have no understanding of logic whatsover. When I say "a wide range", I mean "some", not "all". There exist disputes where people do not need to threaten violence. You have not disproved my statement. Instead, you make the claim that it is necessary to threaten violence for all disputes. I have provided a counterexample to this claim. Thus, I have disproved it. Period.
bloomj31: You gave an example where you got walked all over like a doormat and then unfriended that person. I suppose that works in that context? You can't just unfriend the US government (which is what we were talking about in the first place right?)
You gave an example where you got walked all over like a doormat and then unfriended that person. I suppose that works in that context? You can't just unfriend the US government (which is what we were talking about in the first place right?)
I could press charges. I could attack my friend. I could also let it go and not be friends with him anymore. It seems that you believe that it is never okay to just let things go. You are either a very angry person or a psychopath. Take your pick.
And no, we were not necessarily talking about the US government. You have on multiple occasions brought up the lone thief for examples. The discussion at hand was not only about governments but also about thieves.
The thief was just Autolykos's analogy for the US government.
bloomj31:Look, I'm sorry for derailing this thread. I knew this would happen.
I don't believe that you're sorry one bit. As far as I'm concerned, you derailed the thread on purpose. My question to you is why.
While you're at it, I'd also like an actual response to my last post.
It sounds to me like you already have an answer in mind to this question. Would you like to share it?
So basically you wanted to see what kind of reaction you'd get?