Clayton
But, see, statements like this make me realize that you have no grounding in what morality even is
Fuck you. Your constant condencension is obnoxious. You know damn well what I mean, whether I use your pet semantical terms, or not. If you haven't read my post to Jargon, on what I consider to be morality, then I invite you to do so; and if you have already done so, then I await any valid criticism of it. And maybe you'll then apologize for utterly mischaracterizing my stated point of view:
If you follow the threads with DarylLoydDavis, you will notice a lot of this same idealized moral conception in his arguments. The root problem is that the though-experiment incorrectly treats groups as telic actors - it is not immoral for "rich people" to not give to "poor people", even if they are starving, even though it is immoral for a rich person not to help starving people when he can.
I have made it explicit that I support state intervention to spare the truly innocent, including truly helpless adults, if they cannot survive and will starve without it: It would be immoral not to help. But I do not support helping those who can help themselves, but won't help themselves--except to other peoples' money. And it is just as immoral for a poor person not to help a starving person as it is a rich person. It has nothing to do with class distinctions, or group vs. individual classifications, at all.
I myself went through a brief phase of locking into the pure fight of thwarting those who control most wealth, at all costs. But I quickly rejected it as inherently-negative, reactionary, and ultimately anti-social: it's quixotic self-indulgence masquerading as intellectual activism.
The root moral cause of the State is the justification and acquiescence to hypocrisy or double-standards.
I largely agree with this assertion/observation. But I believe that the motivation behind this "justification and acquiescence" is a genetic predisposition, to varying degrees, within all humans, to employ hypocrisy and impose a conforming acquiescence upon others, so as to acquire increased ownership of the material goods that ensure survival, physically and genetically. This unconscious, or completely-conscious in many cases, disposition does not disappear absent statutory law, as implied by your old post. This is why, if the situation isn't to be given up as hopeless--as it reasonably could be--then a change in the prevailing genetics and unconscious drives of humanity must be effected. And I wrote my document with that end specifically in mind, believe me or not.
Privilege and special exemption is the essnece of the State. It is the widespread, popular acceptance of bad morality that is the foundation on which the State is built. Without it, the State would collapse in an instant.
Less privilege and fewer special exemptions is an apt description of my proposed direct democracy. But I reject the implicit assertion contained in your contention that the State would collapse, if only popular acceptance were dispelled: It is not merely a popularly-held misconception about the blind justice of the law that stands in the way of progress toward a freer people. There are all sorts of different people, none of whom are the Farmers-Elite, who adore such a system, well aware of its use as a ruse for plucking the people--from armed robbers to welfare's new mothers, and so many more inbetween.
Taking other's property for nothing is a legitimate, ingrained, evolutionary survival strategy; and my admittedly-very-un-PC system is specifically designed to turn the tide away from this side of the gene pool. I don't see any other way to alter the course of humanity and its population trends, than through this imposed genetic manipulation, and the local, hands-on training in a system of direct governance, rooted in personal accountability and self-reliance, that my system provides.
So, I think we (all of us) need to go back to the drawing boards on morality
I already have. And this document reflects a lifetime of analysis and observation. ( I'm reading a biography of the Buddha now, incidentally.) You can ignore or dismiss the moral conclusions I've reached, if you wish; but until you actually refute their logic, I'll ask you to spare me references to other thinkers, like Epicurus and his prescription for a moral life spent in friend-filled communes and pastoral self-analysis. I view all loyalties, even to friends, as inherently immoral--anti-individual:
Furthermore, I believe that humans, if they are to mature into fully-moral individuals, must face the full consequences of their actions as directly and as personally as possible. But most do not: They cede their free choice to others; they shelter themselves within groups--familial, political, sports, religious, etc.--and they act in the name of those they claim to represent. Within these contexts, loyalty is widely considered to be a virtue; to me it is a vice. For the surest test of one's loyalty comes not in a defense of the innocent; but in a bold-faced, spirited defense of the guilty. Loyalty perpetuates immorality.
And pleasure is no guide to true morality: often the most disagreeable, shit-eating acts are also the ones that lead to the greatest personal growth; hence my emphasis on individual accountability, not anti-elite, classist, us vs. them dogma like this:
The parasitic class utilizes whatever form of bullying it has at its disposal in order to live at the expense of others.
So do criminals and lazy, boorish people. And I've yet to hear a solution for this from you, except for further posts here to enlighten your ancap masses.
Thank you for your replies to my posts, Clayton; I've enjoyed the debates, even when they were heated. I've learned a good deal from this forum--mostly negative, I'm afraid--but at least I have a more complete understanding of the potential resistance to what I see as meaningful and moral reform.
DarylLloydDavis: But, see, statements like this make me realize that you have no grounding in what morality even is Fuck you. Your constant condencension is obnoxious. You know damn well what I mean, whether I use your pet semantical terms, or not. If you haven't read my post to Jargon, on what I consider to be morality, then I invite you to do so; and if you have already done so, then I await any valid criticism of it. And maybe you'll then apologize for utterly mischaracterizing my stated point of view:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This made my day.
So, Daryl Lloyd Davis, what is the punishment for people who disagree with the rules your state makes up?
Oh, and you may think that by ignoring me the question will go away, but I can assure you that anyone reading this thread has noticed this gaping hole in your idea of morality.
In one of your responses to Wheylous:
DarylLloydDavis: My document is a blueprint for dismantling the state, even while using it as a teaching tool toward an ideal end, imposing a respect for children, discouraging unfettered land development, and encouraging personal accountability.
My document is a blueprint for dismantling the state, even while using it as a teaching tool toward an ideal end, imposing a respect for children, discouraging unfettered land development, and encouraging personal accountability.
In one of your responses to Clayton:
DarylLoydDavis: I have explicitly stated on this forum that I do not consider myself a libertarian. Never have.
I have explicitly stated on this forum that I do not consider myself a libertarian. Never have.
So which is it? Are you a statist or an anti-statist? There is no third option.
And I will ask again:
What is the punishment for those who do not want to follow your laws in your statist society? The more you ignore this, the more everyone reading this thread sees the bullshit you are spewing.
"I won't respond to every post, as I'm more interested in gathering a diversity of opinion than in defending my own."
Jargon
But you still don't get it. It's ok if people drift culturally towards a more matronly nature, but one cannot drift into statehood. The state must establish itself by force
I never should have picked up one of those dolls in the first place. But for the sake of argument I humored your implicit conclusion in a past thread that such a society would stabilize in the first place, even though I don't believe that. And now you want me to go beyond that false premise to speculate upon whether or not the imaginary voluntary organizational structure of an ancap society would be impregnable to votes--votes which would open wide the door to a drift toward a state. I say yes; you say no. End of story.
You're making assumptions. So the society doesn't notice when the bully is bullying the anti-bully? They only notice when the anti-bully retaliates? Some would not consider retaliation aggression. I don't see this scenario as a problem to the NAP at all, more of a "gotcha" attempt.
My larger point was about principles and the need for compromise. There is no immutable NAP principle against aggression--and there shouldn't be--because endless compromises for context are necessary. In the context of the state we find ourselves in, endless compromises are necessary in order to make progress toward a stable free peace. Human progress from what we face here and now will be about growing and learning, not just about obeying the best principle, NAP or otherwise. People have to change first. And I believe that that requires more than just run-of-the-mill education about the NAP: it's partly the gene pool.
Nor is it always so easy to find who is the aggressor, and who the victim--and it doesn't much matter among adults. Adults must face the consequences for their actions, or their inactions, in order to grow as human beings. My system is about channeling humans into becoming something more than they are today--into a race capable of living by the NAP, even if they hadn't known about it--by forcing them to face the consequences of their actions, or their inactions, and so maturing into full, individual adulthood. What matters in my bully scenario is not how society determines who is right or wrong, but that both have grown as individuals; and society has benefited by it.
I see a huge difference between thou shalt not aggress except for self-defense and no regulation except public saftey. Self-defense is easily defined. Public safety is not. What is the public? What is safety? Is safety a subjective value? How can that be measured? What is the public other than a handful of individuals? Could one person's needs account for public safety? And on and on..
All words can be endlessly challenged and parsed, including self-defense, retaliation, and aggression. That's a given under any system.
#3 Sheeple are only a problem when you let them vote about what is done to everyone. Beyond that, what's the problem with letting people suck at thinking?
Who stops them from voting, if the majority of the "flock"--most women, the SOB kids, and a third of the men--start to lose their ancap resolve? (Uh oh, I'm picking up the dolls again, aren't I?)
4) A survival instinct stronger than the will to be free
#4, I believe this is true of most libertarians. What's your point? Also what is freedom? Absence of phyiscal control? Or spiritual/mental?
If the survival instinct is stronger than the will to be free, then any threat to survival--whether from an ancap foreign threat, or from the SOB/loafer/criminal element in such a society--will endanger the resolve of women, in particular, to maintain a free, voluntary arrangement--or even "most liberatarians." I don't even want to get into spiritual/mental freedom, other than the drift/Avenue discussions.
How do you think these families feed people on a Minimum wage employment if it's not a 'living wage'? Sounds like welfare to me. Cut the welfare, the family size shrinks.
This is why these forums suck. I myself have no desire to go back and reread all previous posts when joining a thread. I already said that the MW ought to be enough to support an individual's basic existence, not a family's. I don't want to encourage large poor families--and welfare does, which is why I want it ended.
I don't understand this. Minimum wage and your conception of morality are necessary to people obeying the law? What about self-interest combined with societal wealth?
@Daryl: I'm not condescending to you, I simply don't agree with your ideas on morality.
anti-elite, classist, us vs. them dogma like this: "The parasitic class utilizes whatever form of bullying it has at its disposal in order to live at the expense of others." So do criminals and lazy, boorish people.
"The parasitic class utilizes whatever form of bullying it has at its disposal in order to live at the expense of others."
So do criminals and lazy, boorish people.
When I use the term "parasitic class" I mean it to include every individual who has forsaken a path of moral decency whereby he strives to bring into the world at least the value he intends to consume. The parasitic class are not all parasites. They don't all succeed at doing it. The State simply happens to be the parasite par excellence.
Herein lies part of our problem. By holding up the State on a pedestal as some kind of grand or glorious thing that deserves something other than continual mockery, denigration and sarcasm, we are propagandizing parasitism. People look to their heroes in order to model themselves after them. A hero like Buddha or Epicurus won't teach you how to leech off of others. But a hero like the President, Prime Minister, King or Queen is about nothing but leeching off of others.
Within each of us is a principle of parasitism. You acknowledge this. Frederic Bastiat eloquently states this principle:
Slavery is on its way out, thank Heaven, and our natural inclination to defend our property makes direct and outright plunder difficult. One thing, however, has remained. It is the unfortunate primitive tendency which all men have to divide their complex lot in life into two parts, shifting the pains to others and keeping the satisfactions for themselves. It remains to be seen under what new form this deplorable tendency is manifested. The oppressor no longer acts directly by his own force on the oppressed. No, our conscience has become too fastidious for that. There are still, to be sure, the oppressor and his victim, but between them is placed an intermediary, the state, that is, the law itself. What is better fitted to silence our scruples and—what is perhaps considered even more important—to overcome all resistance? Hence, all of us, with whatever claim, under one pretext or another, address the state. We say to it: "I do not find that there is a satisfactory proportion between my enjoyments and my labor. I should like very much to take a little from the property of others to establish the desired equilibrium. But that is dangerous. Could you not make it a little easier? Could you not find me a good job in the civil service or hinder the industry of my competitors or, still better, give me an interest-free loan of the capital you have taken from its rightful owners or educate my children at the public expense or grant me incentive subsidies or assure my well-being when I shall be fifty years old? By this means I shall reach my goal in all good conscience, for the law itself will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder without enduring either the risks or the odium." - The State, excerpt
The oppressor no longer acts directly by his own force on the oppressed. No, our conscience has become too fastidious for that. There are still, to be sure, the oppressor and his victim, but between them is placed an intermediary, the state, that is, the law itself. What is better fitted to silence our scruples and—what is perhaps considered even more important—to overcome all resistance? Hence, all of us, with whatever claim, under one pretext or another, address the state. We say to it: "I do not find that there is a satisfactory proportion between my enjoyments and my labor. I should like very much to take a little from the property of others to establish the desired equilibrium. But that is dangerous. Could you not make it a little easier? Could you not find me a good job in the civil service or hinder the industry of my competitors or, still better, give me an interest-free loan of the capital you have taken from its rightful owners or educate my children at the public expense or grant me incentive subsidies or assure my well-being when I shall be fifty years old? By this means I shall reach my goal in all good conscience, for the law itself will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder without enduring either the risks or the odium."
- The State, excerpt
So, when I say "parasitic class", I don't mean those who have this principle of parasitism within themselves since that would be all of us and I don't mean only those who succeed in plundering, I mean those who are in a bad moral (we could say spiritual) state where they would if they could. The only thing stopping them from plundering others is the opportunity. This is an uncomfortably large segment of society as you can see by watching video of the LA riots, etc. But it isn't absolutely everyone. There are people with enough moral decency to refrain from injuring and plundering others even when given the opportunity to do so without consequence.
The problem is that we do not hold up these people as heroes or ideals to be striven after.
As far as the biological component goes, I don't think we have much say in that. It will work itself out in time. And from what we know about biology, this situation of systematic parasitism will not last. The principle of parasitism within us will never be eliminated because it is just the aggrandization of self-interest which is an essential component of any living being.
Nor do we have to wait for our biology to change in order to bring about a revolution and suppression of the parasitic class... the biological component of rape still resides within us but our frontal cortex and the social wiring in our brains enable us to pretty effectively suppress this behavior. We need to re-orient our moral thinking so that we understand that taking material things from others that belong to them is in the same class of behavior as rape. It is criminal behavior. As we begin to change ideas and attitudes about the morality of taking from some on the pretext of giving to others supposedly in desperate need, the suppression of the parasitic class will continue and grow.
Clayton -
DarylLloydDavis: I never should have picked up one of those dolls in the first place. But for the sake of argument I humored your implicit conclusion in a past thread that such a society would stabilize in the first place, even though I don't believe that. And now you want me to go beyond that false premise to speculate upon whether or not the imaginary voluntary organizational structure of an ancap society would be impregnable to votes--votes which would open wide the door to a drift toward a state. I say yes; you say no. End of story.
Dude don't you see how immature this argument is? Dolls? Another poster was good enough to point out that your new constitution is no less of a doll than is AC.
Anyways you continue to glide over the utmost importance of the nature of the state. It is a coercive organization. To found it, people must be subjugated under its rule. Voting is not statism if the constituents have voluntarily agreed. The foundation of a state would mean conquering those that did not voluntarily agree to its formation. Thus there can be no drift. It requires a brutal conquest, hardly something that can be 'drifted' into.
My larger point was about principles and the need for compromise. There is no immutable NAP principle against aggression--and there shouldn't be--because endless compromises for context are necessary. In the context of the state we find ourselves in, endless compromises are necessary in order to make progress toward a stable free peace. Human progress from what we face here and now will be about growing and learning, not just about obeying the best principle, NAP or otherwise. People have to change first. And I believe that that requires more than just run-of-the-mill education about the NAP: it's partly the gene pool. Nor is it always so easy to find who is the aggressor, and who the victim--and it doesn't much matter among adults. Adults must face the consequences for their actions, or their inactions, in order to grow as human beings. My system is about channeling humans into becoming something more than they are today--into a race capable of living by the NAP, even if they hadn't known about it--by forcing them to face the consequences of their actions, or their inactions, and so maturing into full, individual adulthood. What matters in my bully scenario is not how society determines who is right or wrong, but that both have grown as individuals; and society has benefited by it.
So we should progress towards statelessness by continuing the state? Teach nonaggression through aggression? People can easily see the consequences of their actions when they are responsible for only themselves and no one else is responsible for them (by law). Who is society and how does it benefit?
So you realize the futility of legislation? Anyways there is a gargantuan difference of terms between 'public safety' and 'self-defense'. Who is the public? What is its safety? Can it be one person or must it be many? How is its safety quantified? These questions are low-hanging fruit for corporations.
Self-defense on the other hand is much simpler:
A: Were you attacked?
B: Yes
A: Did you retaliate?
There ya go. Self defense. Clearly in real life it might not be so simple for a court to decide but at least the term has a concrete definition.
So women and brats are going to wage war on free men? (Uh oh, I'm repeating myself again, aren't I?)
There's nothing improbable about free people coordinating their efforts to maximize the possibility of survival. I suspect that free people realize the fruits of their freedom, and realize the leader-narrative to be a manipulative myth.
Easy there. How is a basic existence's wages defined? Might it *gasp* be below the market wage in a capital-accumulated society (bar inflation) ?
A state was only desirable in the first place as a protection from attack and plunder--by other groups/states. It was instituted to better ensure survival. If it no longer serves that function, even when one contributes to it by obeying the law, working as hard or harder than anyone else, then I believe that they are justified in acting in the least harmful means necessary to ensure their survival, laws or not. Why let it come to that? I wrote this is in a different forum: I do not believe that rights actually exist at all. We talk of rights to indicate what behavior is justifiable within the context of human interaction. There is no more a right to property than a right to life. But if, within the context of society and its laws, one is to defend a right to property, and ownership of property is predicated on the existence of a living owner, then a right to life is a prerequisite of the right to property. Without defending a right to life itself, a right to property becomes worthless. Similarly, a right to free speech has no value if the right to live is not equally well-secured, etc. So the right to life supersedes all other rights: it is the prerequisite of all other rights. Our difference concerns the nature of morality. In my opinion, morality is not simply what is voluntary. One can voluntarily watch a child die of starvation. Is such a man moral? If you answer yes, then you have the moral sophistication of a robot or a roach. Morality must be anchored with an appreciation of innocence and a judgment of guilt. A moral man would not allow the innocent, or the relatively-innocent to die, especially if it were only so as to preserve his full, "lesser" rights. It isn't that the dying, relatively-innocent adult has a claim on, or an entitlement to, the other's property; but that morality dictates that the other aid the dying man; or else he is not a moral man. And a truly moral society is one that equally does not stand by and let the innocent child, or the relatively-innocent adult, die of deprivation--one that dictates that the innocent be protected.
All attempts to explain the origins of the state are speculation. Personally I think it lies in the power of myth and the human want of protection. I don't disagree that watching a child die is immoral. But is it moral to put a gun to that man's head and take his money and give it to the child? Maybe? But what happens when we institutionalize such far-fetched scenario's. Systemic abuse, corporatism, enrichment of the few by the many under the mythical narrative of necessity and security.
First we need to ask, why is the child starving? Can that be helped without violence?
Didn't you say you didn't believe in rights?
Also another thought occured to me. When a state exists as a minarchy, it is doing the least a state can do to impede economic development. Thus the tax base will expand rapidly. Thus the revenue stream to the state will also expand rapidly. Thus the state will grow from the fruits of the unhampered market. A minarchy could only exist as such under conditions of an exponentially shrinking tax rate. Such things are politically difficult. Just another consideration for all you minarchists out there.
DLD, don't wanna make you mad but lets get past these smokescreens of 'intellectual dolls' and 'human nature' whereby you can gloss over answers. Kinda reminds me of Keynes' animal spirits.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I'm not one who believes that the free operation of the laws of economics are the vehicle to a human utopia. I think that this would more likely lead to a planet Earth that resembled the DeathStar--completely economically developed to the last little profit. If a minimum wage slows the "progress" of turning the planet into an asphalt-covered strip mall, subsidizing work instead of slothfulness and dependency (welfare), then I can live with the inconvenience to CEO's and their stockholders. My sense of moral value ultimately outweighs my hunger for economic liberty and prosperity, which I believe is empty absent moral values. My vision of a perfect society isn't one that is so economically prosperous that no morality, through voluntary, responsible limiting of family sizes, or basic mutual appreciation is ever entertained, until it's too late.
So you say that there has to be something else to maintain the morality of society and individuals except their personal preferences, market actors and privately run institutions? I think you'd be interested into the following: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/29870.aspx