I'm wondering if there should be a thread where anyone can imagine scenarios where a law backfires.
I think we could learn a lot about these events and that we could develop the habits needed to sniff-out or visualize how a specific measure would backfire.
I think this has practical application regarding debates. Many times, it's hard to find a convincing answer to questions of the type,"how could safety regulations hurt workers?". If we could develop a habit of thinking about these things we could score some more psychological ground.
Here's an example of a thread contribution:
If safety regulations are put in place, then workplaces will become less safe.
Under what scenario are these propositions true?
I think that if a business follows safety regulations, then it becomes more expensive to make other business expenses. Imagine that another business wants to hire someone, they also want to make the workplace safe but less so, than the first business. However the law does not tolerate any other degree of safety than the one the law establishes and it punishes anyother safety-degree. Therefore, the second business gives up on its desired safety protocols and will instead, merely try to hire people with the least to lose to work the most dangerous jobs.
This can become a wide-spread phenomenon if, the cost of the law's safety is higher than what most businesses are willing to pay.
Does this thread idea meet with approval?
I like the thread idea.
Safety, like other things, is best achieved by taking the situation's unique needs into account. Safety requirements tend to be rigid. This might mean wearing some safety equipment that gets in the way of the task, making it harder to avoid injury. When requirements kick in might encourage someone to do something a different, less-safe inappropriate way just to avoid the requirement for onerous safety equipment. Even if they didn't directly get in the way, they are "using up" the person's "safety budget"; there's only so much a person is willing to do in the name of safety, so less beneficial things will be done if one is having to do lots of unnecessary things. There's also the sense that the requirements cover everything, encouraging people to think less about safety than if they were on their own to implement it.
fakename:I'm wondering if there should be a thread where anyone can imagine scenarios where a law backfires.
Bingo. This sort of thread is brilliant and necessary. I've been wanting to start this type of thread but I feel like people around here have no incentive to think critically to challenge beliefs they're emotionally attached to (not unlike most humans).
Specifically, I wanted to start a thread titled something like "debugging libertarianism" or "troubleshooting anarchism". The fact is that power corrupts, it doesn't matter whether your premise for insitutionalizing that power is X (statism is good) or Y (anarchism is good)...the result is going to be corruption. The thread would help people to imagine how evil people would take advantage of any system of institutionalized power, regardless of what banner it flies under.
That's my contribution. And a tip of the hat to OP for his ingenuity in seeing the value of this type of thinking.
lolololol
hashem: "those silly libertarianians want to institutionalize a fully decentralized system of law. zomg there will still be evil and corrupt people. wut now punkz."
ty4urcontribution
gotlucky:lolololol hashem: "those silly libertarianians want to institutionalize a fully decentralized system of law. zomg there will still be evil and corrupt people. wut now punkz."
How unfortunate for anyone who cares about your posts that you resort to childish bullying when you're uncomfortable. That says enough about the quality of your objections to my ideas. Bullying, trolling, red herring, how original.... My issue isn't that "there will still be corrupt people." Of course there will be, and like shit to flies the institutions of power-over-others will attract them. But my issue is that the system itself is fundamentally flawed. You can give a mustang a new paint job, but it's still a mustang. And since nothing fundamental will have changed, then as ever the institutions of power will pour money into outlets of propaganda to mould the masses.
Look, libertarians want to have their cake and eat it too. Power corrupts, but libertarians want a system to get less corrupt over time while still being dependent on institutionalized violent morals enforcement. They shout how a definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and then they advocate the same thing with a new paint job and expect different results.
In real life there are workarounds, and there are solutions. Libertarianism is a workaround masquerading as a solution to the problem of conflict due to scarcity. The problem isn't finding the right violent morals enforcement institution; any system of violent morals enforcement is flawed because power corrupts. A solution will address scarcity and the drive to conflict with others, I've gone over that here.
If you want to challenge yourself and troubleshoot anarchism, great. Let's talk about the unintended consequences of changing the face of violent institutions. To me that sounds exciting. And it's not enough to talk about it as though it were already present in a bubble. What are the real-world obstacles it has to confront, and compromises it has to make, in order to even (be allowed to) exist as a beta model available to consumers?
You are still full of shit. I see you haven't changed your tune. You seem to think that somehow libertarians give a shit that you think violently enforcing certain morals is a bad thing. Get over yourself. You have nothing to say.
Thanks for your contribution.
gotlucky:You are still full of shit. I see you haven't changed your tune. You seem to think that somehow libertarians give a shit that you think violently enforcing certain morals is a bad thing. Get over yourself. You have nothing to say.
Lol, smooth deflection...troll level: gotlucky. The irony of you telling me to get over myself. The pure, brilliant irony of you presenting a nonargument red herring to tell me I have nothing to say. The sheer, shameless audacity of you being your typical self to convey how I haven't changed. This is picture perfect. You sir are a fantastic troll. 10/10. I applaud your efforts.
It's funny because I don't even disagree with you! You're right, if libertarians are anything like you, they don't care. Like any other emotionally attached and blinded, religiously zealous crank they just want a comfortable myth to keep them warm at night and to fight off thoughts of a harsh reality.
But you're derailing the thread (not surprising since you're trolling). I came here on topic, I want to talk about unintended consequences of changing the paint job on institutionalized violent morals enforcement and calling it a solution to the problem of conflict due to scarcity. The OP has a great idea, he asked for contributing topics, that's mine. Let's troubleshoot anarchism. What could go wrong?
hashem: The fact is that power corrupts, it doesn't matter whether your premise for insitutionalizing that power is X (statism is good) or Y (anarchism is good)...the result is going to be corruption. The thread would help people to imagine how evil people would take advantage of any system of institutionalized power, regardless of what banner it flies under.
The fact is that power corrupts, it doesn't matter whether your premise for insitutionalizing that power is X (statism is good) or Y (anarchism is good)...the result is going to be corruption. The thread would help people to imagine how evil people would take advantage of any system of institutionalized power, regardless of what banner it flies under.
hashem: My issue isn't that "there will still be corrupt people." Of course there will be, and like shit to flies the institutions of power-over-others will attract them. But my issue is that the system itself is fundamentally flawed. You can give a mustang a new paint job, but it's still a mustang. And since nothing fundamental will have changed, then as ever the institutions of power will pour money into outlets of propaganda to mould the masses.
My issue isn't that "there will still be corrupt people." Of course there will be, and like shit to flies the institutions of power-over-others will attract them. But my issue is that the system itself is fundamentally flawed. You can give a mustang a new paint job, but it's still a mustang. And since nothing fundamental will have changed, then as ever the institutions of power will pour money into outlets of propaganda to mould the masses.
hashem: Look, libertarians want to have their cake and eat it too. Power corrupts, but libertarians want a system to get less corrupt over time while still being dependent on institutionalized violent morals enforcement. They shout how a definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and then they advocate the same thing with a new paint job and expect different results. In real life there are workarounds, and there are solutions. Libertarianism is a workaround masquerading as a solution to the problem of conflict due to scarcity. The problem isn't finding the right violent morals enforcement institution; any system of violent morals enforcement is flawed because power corrupts.
In real life there are workarounds, and there are solutions. Libertarianism is a workaround masquerading as a solution to the problem of conflict due to scarcity. The problem isn't finding the right violent morals enforcement institution; any system of violent morals enforcement is flawed because power corrupts.
"The problem isn't finding the right system of law; any system of law is flawed because power corrupts." Here's what I have to say: Your posts are full of shit. You advocate for a human hive mind as an alternative to law, and you get very defensive when someone calls you out on your bullshit.
You have no idea what law is or what it's purpose is. You have only one idea of what a libertarian approach to law is, and that is the Rothbardian approach. There are other approaches yet you only criticize Rothbardians, and quite poorly at that.
On the topic of derailment, you too are derailing this thread. At any time you could cease to respond to me, yet you have done it anyway. Please, hashem, continue to derail this thread.
Thank you for your contribution.
Power corrupts, but libertarians want a system to get less corrupt over time while still being dependent on institutionalized violent morals enforcement.
What is the underlined supposed to mean? I am not understanding you.
Humans will always be humans, libertarianism, like any political idea is just a new poltiical technology which we hope will solve many of the world's problems today. It never proves a quick fix.
Once the world is libertarianised, who knows what other political ideologies/technologies may arise to solve the problems of libertarianism.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
gotlucky:zomg...wut now punkz
Invalid. Also immature.
gotlucky:Your posts are full of shit.
gotlucky:You are still full of shit.
gotlucky:Get over yourself. You have nothing to say.
gotlucky:Here's what I have to say: Your posts are full of shit.
I'll give you points for consistency...
gotlucky:you get very defensive when someone calls you out on your bullshit.
I hope you're not referring to your trolling as though you "called me out"...
Kelvin Silva: hashem:Power corrupts, but libertarians want a system to get less corrupt over time while still being dependent on institutionalized violent morals enforcement. What is the underlined supposed to mean? I am not understanding you.
hashem:Power corrupts, but libertarians want a system to get less corrupt over time while still being dependent on institutionalized violent morals enforcement.
Institutionalized, as in forming established organizations with mass support (or mass failure to overthrow). Violent-morals-enforcement, as in relying violence to enforce morals, as a workaround to conflicts caused by scarcity, instead of solving the problem of scarcity. My point is that power corrupts. Statism has failed not because it used institutions of violence to enforce the wrong morals, but because it relies on isntitutionalized violent morals enforcement.
I agree that libertarianism isn't a quick fix. In fact, the more I extrapolate the implications of libertarianism, the more I realize it's wholly intended to further entrench and rationalize violence and stall or prevent an actual fix. I support your theme that we use technology to solve problems, and that it will be technology which, if libertarianism is ever organised, will need to "arise to solve the problems of libertarianism."
hashem: Invalid. Also immature.
Derail.
hashem: Institutionalized, as in forming established organizations with mass support (or mass failure to overthrow). Violent-morals-enforcement, as in relying violence to enforce morals, as a workaround to conflicts caused by scarcity, as opposed to a solution to the problem of scarcity. My point is that power corrupts. Statism has failed not because it used institutions of violence to enforce the wrong morals, but because it relies on isntitutionalized violent morals enforcement.
Institutionalized, as in forming established organizations with mass support (or mass failure to overthrow). Violent-morals-enforcement, as in relying violence to enforce morals, as a workaround to conflicts caused by scarcity, as opposed to a solution to the problem of scarcity. My point is that power corrupts. Statism has failed not because it used institutions of violence to enforce the wrong morals, but because it relies on isntitutionalized violent morals enforcement.
Again, hashem would like to ditch law altogether in favor of a hive mind. More bullshit. Please continue.
Hashem, from reading your posts on here, it sounds to me like you intellectually identify with the traditionalist perspective on anarchism - rejection of ANY authority what-so-ever. Is this true?
EDIT
I'm asking because I was immediately reminded of Kropotkin I saw you mentioning interactions between humans and their correlation to animals.
t's wholly intended to further entrench and rationalize violence and stall or prevent an actual fix.
How do you justify this statement? Dont we here all adhere to the NAP?
SkepticalMetal:Hashem, from reading your posts on here, it sounds to me like you intellectually identify with the traditionalist perspective on anarchism - rejection of ANY authority what-so-ever. Is this true?
I would need you to clarify that... If I take it for what I think you mean, then I don't actually reject authority in the sense that I'm not actually opposed to it per se. I mean, I can imagine valuing myself having authority over others. I've just been arguing that subjective morality isn't a valid case for insitutionalized violence. Also, libertarianism isn't a solution to violence, it is in fact institutionalized violence with a different paint job—it simply aims at enforcing different morals.
So libertarians want to solve the problem of violence by instituting violence. How is that different from every other system that's been tried and failed in the past? That's what I'm saying.
I get it. You know every time I read what you write on here I get the feeling that you're absolutely correct, yet something is holding me back from fully accepting what you speak of - possibly what held me back initially from taking the libertarian trail. Within the past few days, I've gotten into existentialism - and I must say, at this point, I just feel like letting loose and dropping constant radicalism. I mean, if this absurd world doesn't want libertarianism right now, who am I to force the ideology on it? I myself can be value what I like right now, and spread what I believe as I go on actually enjoying life rather than getting ticked off constantly by the state (can't live that way).
Kelvin Silva: hashem: [libertarianism is] wholly intended to further entrench and rationalize violence and stall or prevent an actual fix. How do you justify this statement? Dont we here all adhere to the NAP?
hashem: [libertarianism is] wholly intended to further entrench and rationalize violence and stall or prevent an actual fix.
[libertarianism is] wholly intended to further entrench and rationalize violence and stall or prevent an actual fix.
I guess the fact that I always have to explain this is, to me, evidence that it isn't as obvious to most people as it is to me. Libertarianism is a system of institutionalized violent morals enforcement. As a philosophy, it intends to further entrench that because it is that. It doesn't want to solve the problem of scarcity, it just wants to try what's already been tried and failed throughout history—but this time, it has a more sophisticated rationalization for it. It has a stronger moral case, and it has a stronger economic case. But it's ultimately just institutionalized violent morals enforcement; more of the same.
Do you all adhere to the NAP? Maybe. But I think the NAP is libertarianisms big distraction. It's the magician's sexy assistant. To me it's not about that, it's about the fact that libertarianism is just another attempt at an unjustifiable institutionalization of violent morals enforcement. It's not an improvement, it's just a more sophisticated reiteration of the same fundamental error that's been tried and tried and failed consistently.
hashem: I would need you to clarify that... If I take it for what I think you mean, then I don't actually reject authority in the sense that I'm not actually opposed to it per se. I mean, I can imagine valuing myself having authority over others. I've just been arguing that subjective morality isn't a valid case for insitutionalized violence. Also, libertarianism isn't a solution to violence, it is in fact institutionalized violence with a different paint job—it simply aims at enforcing different morals. So libertarians want to solve the problem of violence by instituting violence. How is that different from every other system that's been tried and failed in the past? That's what I'm saying.
It's such a disgrace that you even participate on these boards. Libertarianism does not reject violence. It rejects the initiation of violence. You have no knowledge of what you are even criticizing. Disgraceful.
SkepticalMetal:I get it. You know every time I read what you write on here I get the feeling that you're absolutely correct, yet something is holding me back from fully accepting what you speak of - possibly what held me back initially from taking the libertarian trail.
Sometimes I can end my night with faith in humanity temporarily restored. This sort of post makes tonight one of those times. I agree with the general vibe of your post, but especially the first part. The same thing that holds people back from rejecting statism's inconsistencies is what holds libertarians back from seeing the errors of libertarianism. Comfortable myths. I should write a book titled that. And with that, good night.
gotlucky:Libertarianism does not reject violence. It rejects the initiation of violence.
It does, in fact, manifestly support initiation of violence. It just doesn't consider it's own violence as initial, because it's violence is institutional.
Gotlucky, i side with you more.
I barely understand his viewpoint on libertarianism. How can he possibly justify his statement of "libertarianism is just another way ot institutionalized violence" when libertarianism doesnt have an institution?
LOL. Rape is not rape. Murder is not murder.
What a disgrace.
Kelvin Silva: Gotlucky, i side with you more. I barely understand his viewpoint on libertarianism.
I barely understand his viewpoint on libertarianism.
Fair enough. By your own admission you barely understand my position, so I don't fault you for failing to acknowledge it.
Kelvin Silva:How can he possibly justify his statement of "libertarianism is just another way ot institutionalized violence" when libertarianism doesnt have an institution?
It's a malformed question. The fact that libertarianism is a system of institutionalized violence doesn't require libertarians to all support only one (in your words, "an") institution. It's the violence that's institutionalized. Libertarian is a system that relies on institutionalized violence to enforce morals. It's elementary....
The problem with hashem is that he has a very narrow view of libertarianism, which is in fact an umbrella term for liberty oriented philosophies. Even the anarchist libertarians do not all share the same views on law. Consider the Rothbardian approach versus the David Friedman approach. Even Rothbard and Block disagree on some things, and they are basically in the same camp.
The other main problem with hashem is that he rejects all systems of law. Law is what humans use to resolve conflicts without further violence. hashem conflates both legal and extralegal resolutions. hashem holds the belief that humans need a hive mind in order to morally resolve disputes. Fantasy is hashem's solution.
There is little point to debating hashem. I've done it. Malachi has done it. Clayton has done it. Neodoxy has done it. But hashem has nothing to offer. He has either little understanding of the various libertarian viewpoints or he willfully misrepresents them. He's intellectually dishonest either way. As you know, libertarianism is based on the NAP. But hashem would have us believe that rape is not rape. A is not A. What else is there to talk about with a fool like that?
Libertarians: Thou shalt not rape.
hashem: If you do anything to prevent or punish a rapist, then you are in fact aggressing against the rapist.
Libertarians: In the first case it is defensive violence, not aggressive violence. In the second case it is retaliatory violence. Libertarians clearly emphases proportion. Defensive violence can become aggressive violence, but not necessarily. Retaliatory violence can become aggressive violence, but not necessarily.
Notice the words "defensive" and "retaliatory". Defensive is not aggressive violence. They are contrary ideas. Retaliatory is not initiation. Literally. Retaliation. If the defensive or retaliatory violence goes beyond proportion, then the violence becomes aggressive.
This is not new stuff. Rothbard has great work on proportionality, and the concept has been further refined by others. hashem just likes to misdirect and cast smoke to cloud the issues.
Don't put words in my mouth. I invited you and Malachi to a chat where everyone could see us talk in real time. You agreed with me and we left it there. Anyone you named, I invite to a live chat. Don't misrepresent me, don't put words in my mouth. I understand quite thoroughly the many libertarian positions. All of them require violence, and I'm willing to discuss this live.
We are well aware that libertarianism requires violence. Fortunately for libertarians, this is not a contradiction for them. No words were put in your mouth. They are accurate descriptions of the logical conclusions of your statements.
Law is what humans use to resolve conflicts without further violence.
Law is a term for rules. Positive law is a term for manmande rules. Manmade rules are concepts, they don't do anything. Conflicts aren't resolved with nothing, they're resolved either with mutual agreement or with violence (or threats of violence). My understanding is that you consider your version of law to be mutual agreement (although still requiring violence). I don't accept that law is mutual agreement. See below.
Libertarians: Thou shalt not rape. hashem: If you do anything to prevent or punish a rapist, then you are in fact aggressing against the rapist.
Translation....
Libertarians: we will use violence against you.
hashem: If you do anything to prevent or punish someone, you're using violence.
I never said rape isn't rape, that's you putting words in my mouth. That's you being intellectually dishonest, not me. This whole thread is you projecting. Again, I'm happy to discuss this openly, live, in the chat with you and everyone.
My argument isn't that rape isn't rape, it's that libertarianism (as system of institutionalized violent morals enforcement) is trying the same thing over and expecting different results.
Personally I think morals simply arise out of the trends and the thoughts of the masses, and the state sees coercive possibilities in these morals and thus the state adopts them as laws that they can enforce in a mafia-fashion.
More than only the state, it's whatever institutions capitalize on the vulnerability of humans to psychological manipulation by claiming that something as individually subjective as morals are sufficient to objectively justify violence. Violence may or may not be used in whatever case, but in every case morality is insufficient justification.
Yeah. It all seems very paradoxial - I don't think I could become a pacifist (which, with what you are saying about violence to enforce morals, is being pointed at).
Like you said before, that sort of world isn't even remotely possible until technology progresses and people gain more information. Until then, the best thing to do is for each individual to just live their life according to the meaning that they give it, and live it authentically.
I'm going to respond tomorrow with more on hashem's bullshit, but this was too quick to pass up:
hashem: More than only the state, it's whatever institutions capitalize on the vulnerability of humans to psychological manipulation by claiming that something as individually subjective as morals are sufficient to objectively justify violence. Violence may or may not be used in whatever case, but in every case morality is insufficient justification.
Again, Rothbardianism is not the only type of libertarianism. We've been over this. Natural rights theory is only ONE type of justification for libertarianism. Why don't you learn about some of the OTHER approaches?
Also, IN YOUR OPINION, morality is not a sufficient justification. SO WHAT? That is YOUR opinion. It is NOT more correct than any other subjective opinion.
gotlucky:Also, IN YOUR OPINION, [subjective] morality is not a sufficient justification. SO WHAT?
It has nothing to do with my opinion. Subjective is by definition not-objective, and vice versa.
gotlucky:Rothbardianism is not the only type of libertarianism. We've been over this. Natural rights theory is only ONE type of justification for libertarianism. Why don't you learn about some of the OTHER approaches?
You're confusing me here, but I won't flail like a little brat. You're not making it clear why in your opinion my premise requires a distinction between different types of libertarianism. Libertarianism (any system of manmade law, or to be more specific, systems of manmade rules that need to be enforced) is a system of institutionalized violent morals enforcement; it doesn't matter who's brand of rationalization you base it on.
The only objection I've seen from you and Malachi is that "law doesn't need to be enforced". To me that's an intellectually bankrupt thing to say, especially when you all acknowledge that there will (and in my opinion, will need to be) be institutions which use violence to prevent (or avenge) rule-breakers.
Unlike some of us I'm humble enough to acknowledge that I may have misrepresented your position. In my understanding your position is manifestly silly; it would help if you clarify precisely what you think my position is, precisely what your position is, and then how my position is incompatible with yours.
hashem, you've made many attempts to present your position. I've read them all and I still don't know what your position is. Are you worried that the very act of presenting a position may be tantamount to "institutionalizing" a "concept" which is somehow wrong? What other than "concepts" could possibly come out of a human mind?
z1235:hashem, you've made many attempts to present your position. I've read them all and I still don't know what your position is.
Well I don't really claim to have one single all-encompasing, comprehensive "position", whatever that would mean. Really, my position (or more properly, my thoughts) on any given topic depends on what's being discussed...
If you're confused about my thoughts on a specific subject, I'm happy to discuss that.
hashem, I was talking about your position in this thread, for instance. How is libertarianism "institutionalizing" violence (or anything else for that matter)? Can you give an example for something which is NOT a "concept"?
Btw, perhaps the OP can chip in too but IMO you did derail this thread. Perhaps starting a new one where you explain your position and raise questions in an OP would have been a better idea.
z1235:IMO you did derail this thread.
This statement blew my mind. In the first case, I'm not even sure why you felt the need to say that. Of all the people who participated in the derailing of this thread, I'm the only one who came here on topic.
z1235:How is libertarianism "institutionalizing" violence (or anything else for that matter)? Can you give an example for something which is NOT a "concept"?
I'm having trouble understanding what you're asking, or what you're asking me to do. Can you perhaps rephrase? To the extent that I can make sense of your questions, my answer is: libertarianism doesn't do anything, it's a concept. But libertarians, people who hold libertarian ideals and act to implement them in the real world, necessarily rely on institutionalized violence to enforce their rules (what they call "law").