Anenome: This is a joke, right?
Anenome: This is a joke, right?
Is freedom a joke?
The State:Is freedom a joke?
You seem to think so.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
The State:Autolykos, if you don't support "spare the rod, spoil the child", maybe you think a policy of benign neglect is best for the nation's children?
The State:If so, you can't deny the state is in best placed to implement such a policy: just look at the neglected condition of much of the nation's infrastructure.
You're going to have to do better than this, troll.
The State:By 'nation', I mean the geographical area over which the state enjoys a monopoly on violence.
How does the state enjoy a monopoly on violence, exactly? I don't see how it does.
The State:By 'law', I mean the ability of the state to maim, kill or imprison anybody for any act the state deems unlawful.
I see that you're well-versed in the employment of circular definitions. Try again.
Actually, let me help: do you mean "the ability of the state to maim, kill, or imprison anybody for any act that the state deems warrants it"?
The State:By "correct behaviour and development", I mean behaving like a homo sapien and developing correctly into an adult homo sapien, not for instance a Martian, monkey, wolf-man, Godzilla or Nephilim. Behaving like a human being, not being a giant lizard and terrorising Tokyo.
This definition is even worse than the last one. Try again. I'm not going to help you this time.
The State:Surely even you can't deny that a child raised under the care of the state would not develop in such an incorrect manner, would not suffer such metamorphoses.
I know of no instance where any human being has ever suffered "such metamorphoses", so your point is entirely moot.
The State:By policing of laws, I mean that if for instance a law was passed "children who tease other children will spend 6 months in jail", most private parents wouldn't support such a law, wouldn't report children who broke it, so it'd be difficult to enforce. If however all children were raised by public parents, agents of the state who could be paid to police the law (report children who break it), then it'd be much easier to enforce such a law.
Another circular definition. Try again.
I think I can help you on this one, too: if you consider "law" to be "the ability of the state to maim, kill, or imprison anybody for any act that the state deems warrants it", then perhaps "police the law" means "to exercise the law", i.e. "to exercise the ability of the state to maim, kill, or imprison anybody for any act that the state deems warrants it". Does that sound right?
The State:If you don't think the state has successfully protected against the spread of drug use, ask yourself: without laws against it, what would stop drug use from continuously increasing in popularity as societal time-preferences fell, until it was at over 90% like alcohol use? Nothing. So, the fact that well under 90% of the population regularly use illicit drugs can be taken as a sign of the success of the policy.
Even assuming that nothing else would stop drug use from continuously increasing in popularity, that in no way means that drug use therefore would continuously increase in popularity, so you've put forth a non sequitur. Furthermore, your non sequitur contains an implicit assumption that societal time-preferences will necessarily fall in the future. Perhaps you'd like to support that.
The State:As for illegal immigration, if government has no power to stop it, then why is it much less of a problem in Washington DC, where the central government is headquartered, than in far away states like Texas, where the Federal Government has relatively less influence?
This is an example of the fallacy of division. Immigration, by common definition, concerns nations, not subdivisions within nations.
The State:Well, if children were beaten by their carers every time they engaged in aggression, they'd be conditioned to experience a fear response every time they considered an aggressive act, no? Hence, they'd be less likely to aggress in future :) Surely if there's one thing the continual existence of the state has proven, it's that the best way to stop violence is with more violence.
I figured it was you, Centinel. Only you continually and intentionally equivocate between "aggression" and "violence".
The State:Having incarcerated children provide low-cost labour would allow America to become a low-cost producer and steal China's competitive advantage in that area, especially now Chinese labour costs are rising. This child labour, where previously there was none, would represent a net increase in manufactured goods produced by the nation, and assuming there was an overseas market for these goods this would translate into a net increase in exports, and hence a reduction in the trade deficit. If this was combined with inflationary policy to reduce international the purchasing power of the nation's consumers, bringing it closer to that of Chinese consumers, then this would result in a decrease in imports which would also contribute towards reducing the trade deficit.
I didn't know that you live in one of the Commonwealth countries, Centinel. Good to know.
But anyway, imprisonment does not per se mean learning "vital assembly-line skills", so there's another non sequitur.
The State and Autolykos, get a room.
How about yours? I call eminent domain!
The State:Well, the style of childrearing you support must fall somewhere between rigorous application of violent discipline and a complete absence of discipline.
Really? And why is that? Please do explain.
The State:As I've demonstrated [sic] the state is extremely competent both at neglect and violence, surely it'd also be competent at any intermediate point that falls between these two extremes?
You're making at least one category mistake here, as the state is not neglectful when it comes to violence. Furthermore, if neglecting children is a form of raising them, then there's no way to not raise children.
The State:Do you deny that the state's faculty to be neglectful in the maintenance of infrastructure could also be used for being neglectful in the rearing of children?
See above. Also, I think your point proves too much. For example, it could be said that I am supremely "neglectful" with respect to flying airplanes, as I've never flown one. Therefore, by your reasoning, my faculty to be neglectful in the flying of airplanes could also be used for being neglectful in the rearing of children. Therefore, if one thinks the best way to raise children is to neglect them, then all children should be raised by me.
Obviously, there are many more examples of people being supremely "neglectful" in this way, so the general conclusion reached is that all children should be raised by people.
The State:By a monopoly on violence, I mean the state has a monopoly on nationally accepted, arbitrary violence.
I see. So you've been employing an unqualified phrase to convey a qualified meaning, without explaining the qualification(s) to begin with. That's called "dishonesty".
The State:The state can say "okay, you owe me 30% of your income", walk into your house, and apply violence to you if you don't give them what they ask for, and the majority of the other inhabitants of the nation will think the state justified in this action. If however any other agent attempted the same thing, they'd generally be regarded as acting in an unacceptable manner by the majority of the nation's inhabitants.
Hence the state does not enjoy a monopoly on all violence, which was my point. Thanks for implicitly conceding it.
The State:How is my definition circular?
Because it contains a word that is derived from the very word you're defining: "unlawful".
The State:By "any act the state deems unlawful", I mean exactly the same as your definition "any act that the state deems warrants it"; an unlawful act is just the word the state gives to an act it doesn't like.
I figured, which is why I put forth that alternative definition. But note that the alternative definition is not circular.
The State:My point was that private parents don't have the ability to maim, kill or imprison their kids for any act the parent labels 'unlawful' (at least not to do so and get away with it), whereas the state does.
I think what you mean to say is that the state does not allow private parents to maim, kill, or imprison their kids for any act that the parents deem warrants it. Note that this is different from saying that private parents don't have the ability (i.e. the physical means) to do so (and get away with it).
The State:Try again? Okay, by 'proper development' I mean two things. Firstly, developing into an individual with a understanding of the nature of logic, deduction and induction, basic economics, the statistical/scientific method; all the things necessary for an individual to minimise the number of fallacious ideas about the world they acquire as they navigate their life.
Do you think the state (necessarily) agrees with you about the meaning of "proper development" in this sense? Also, do you think you've provided an exhaustive list of "all the things necessary..."?
The State:By fallacious ideas, I mean thing objectively demonstrable to be false, such as the idea that mixing an apple and vinegar produces peanut butter, or that one can create real wealth by printing money.
There are apparently people who consider that second example to not be objectively demonstrable to be false. How do you reconcile this?
The State:The fewer fallacious ideas an individual has about how the world works, the better they'll be able to achieve whatever goals they may have.
Are you sure about that? Can you provide support that that's necessarily the case?
The State:Secondly, I mean developing into an individual with a maximal amount of 'freedom', in the Spinozan sense of the word.
Let's investigate this Spinozan sense of "freedom":
Spinoza:VII. That thing is called free, which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action.
Can it be said that, regardless of one's point of view, human action is necessarily determined by the human self alone? I know of at least one point of view that says otherwise - neuroscience.
The State:Yes, that sounds right. The state would be better able to exercise the ability to maim, kill, or imprison children for any act that it deems warrants it, if children were raised by agents of the state rather than by private parents.
Right, and that makes your argument almost tautological. It boils down to "the state is better able to do what it wants when it's in direct control".
The State:My argument for why drug use would continuously increase in popularity was that alcohol use has increased to over 90%. Considering some illicit drugs, like marijuana, are generally less dangerous or harmful than alcohol, and harmfulness would likely be the most significant reason for people to avoid drugs if they were legal， why should the use of such drugs not rise to a similar level as alcohol use?
Who knows? My point was that your argument here is a non sequitur.
The State:There was no implicit assumption that societal time-preferences will necessarily fall in the future in my argument, rather I was referring to how time preferences seem to have fallen since the beginning of the war on drugs, if one takes savings rates and obesity rates as indicators of time preference.
Yes, there was an implicit assumption in your argument that societal time-preferences will necessarily fall in the future: "without laws against it, what would stop drug use from continuously increasing in popularity as societal time-preferences fell, until it was at over 90% like alcohol use? [emphasis added]". If you were referring to a hypothetical alternate course of events in the past, you would've used the phrase "what would have stopped" instead.
The State:Texas and Washington DC are not 'subdivisions within nations' in the sense of the word 'nation' that I'm using, as my use of the word refers to the area over which the state enjoys a monopoly on 'legitimate' (socially accepted) aggression.
An area can be subdivided, yes? So if a nation is an area, then a nation can be subdivided. Hence Texas and Washington, D.C., for example, are indeed "subdivisions within nations" in the sense of the word "nation" that you're using.
The State:In quantitative terms, the federal state's power is weaker in Texas, because it is limited by the local state government there, and because of the more anti-federal attitudes of the populace there compared to in DC. So, my point is that in Texas where the federal government (state) has quantitatively less power, there's quantitatively more illegal immigrants.
By that reasoning, the federal state's power should be even weaker in, say, the Persian Gulf, because the Persian Gulf is even farther away from Washington, D.C. than Texas is.
There's another way in which your argument doesn't follow. The federal state employs far more agents near the national borders than it does in e.g. Nebraska. So why are there more illegal immigrants in Texas than in Nebraska?
The State:Who is Centinal? If he's someone preaching a bill of economic rights, then obviously The State doesn't support that notion, as it limits the state's ability to direct resources towards ensuring correct development of the nation's youth
I think it's clear that you are Centinel. By the way, evading bans is normally strongly prohibited in internet forums.
The State:Why should writing in British English necessarily indicate that one lives in the Commonwealth? Maybe it's just an indication of opposition to the centralisation of language, as most of the spelling differences you reference came largely from the efforts of one man, Noah Webster, to change the English language so as to make it more to his liking.
I never said it necessarily indicates that. But based on the evidence, I consider it safe to assume that you do live in a Commonwealth nation. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary. (Note: at this point, I won't consider subsequent changing of your spelling habits to be evidence to the contrary.)