So, I have to read this for class and it is making my skin crawl. I just wanted to share it with you people.
It is the second part of a three part section in my class on modern political economic developments. This is the "regulation" part. We read part of "What Social Classes Owe Each Other" and "Harding's Rugged Individualism Speech" for the laissez faire section. The next part is "redistribution..." This appears to be a book from 1906.
APPLIED SOCIOLOGY A TREATISE ON THE CONSCIOUS IMPROVEMENT OF SOCIETY BY SOCIETY BY LESTER F. WARD
(p.13)
"Progress is not automatic, in the sense that if we were all to be cast into a deep slumber for the space of a generation, we should arouse to find ourselves in a greatly improved social state. The world only grows better, even in the moderate degree in which it does grow better, because people wish that it should, and take the right steps to make it better. - JOHN MORLEY."
"In the eleventh chapter of Pure Sociology it is shown that the most important principle of social dynamics is effort. But its dynamic effect, from the standpoint of pure sociology, is unconscious, unintended, and undesired. The social development that results from it is spontaneous. Applied sociology assumes that effort is consciously and intentionally directed to the improvement of social conditions." "A certain school maintains that all such effort is ineffectual; that it is in the nature of interfering with the forces that are causing natural or spontaneous social development, and is therefore detrimental. It is rarely stated in so general a form and is usually narrowed down to the question of interference by the state with the efforts of individuals. It then goes by the name of the doctrine of laissez faire. The usual form of stating this doctrine is that the interest of the individual is the same as that of the public, and therefore the public interest is only secured by the free activity of the individual. No one has gone to the extreme length, however, of defending criminal action under this rule, and therefore the qualification called the law of “equal freedom“ is always made. The defenders of this doctrine have not been content to limit it to the ordinary cases of interference with the activities of individuals, which would have little to do with applied sociology, but they extend it to include all collective action except that which is manifestly essential to the protection of society. All initiative on the part of society - or, as they usually say, the state, or the „government” - is condemned as involving interference with the activities of individuals." "The prolonged contemplation of purely spontaneous processes evolving highly developed products leads to complete distrust of all claims on the part of man to any power to accomplish similar results. It is so glaringly obvious that no human effort can create even the simplest form of organic life that the conclusion is at once drawn that all attempts to transform nature artificially are vain and visionary. The latest teachings of modern science have thus thrown a sort of pall over the human mind and introduced a new philosophy, - a philosophy of despair, it may be called, because it robs its adherents of all hope in any conscious alteration of the course of nature with respect to man, and denies the efficacy of effort." "Those who take the narrower view and condemn the efforts of society to ameliorate its condition do not content themselves with denying all efficacy in such efforts. This would at least be logical and would compel the advocates of social initiative to prove that such efforts may be successful. But the defenders of laissez faire almost uniformly take another step, fatal to their fundamental position, and insist that the interference which they condemn is injurious and pernicious in preventing in some way the successful operation of the benign tendencies of spontaneous natural law."
"A certain school maintains that all such effort is ineffectual; that it is in the nature of interfering with the forces that are causing natural or spontaneous social development, and is therefore detrimental. It is rarely stated in so general a form and is usually narrowed down to the question of interference by the state with the efforts of individuals. It then goes by the name of the doctrine of laissez faire. The usual form of stating this doctrine is that the interest of the individual is the same as that of the public, and therefore the public interest is only secured by the free activity of the individual. No one has gone to the extreme length, however, of defending criminal action under this rule, and therefore the qualification called the law of “equal freedom“ is always made. The defenders of this doctrine have not been content to limit it to the ordinary cases of interference with the activities of individuals, which would have little to do with applied sociology, but they extend it to include all collective action except that which is manifestly essential to the protection of society. All initiative on the part of society - or, as they usually say, the state, or the „government” - is condemned as involving interference with the activities of individuals."
"The prolonged contemplation of purely spontaneous processes evolving highly developed products leads to complete distrust of all claims on the part of man to any power to accomplish similar results. It is so glaringly obvious that no human effort can create even the simplest form of organic life that the conclusion is at once drawn that all attempts to transform nature artificially are vain and visionary. The latest teachings of modern science have thus thrown a sort of pall over the human mind and introduced a new philosophy, - a philosophy of despair, it may be called, because it robs its adherents of all hope in any conscious alteration of the course of nature with respect to man, and denies the efficacy of effort."
"Those who take the narrower view and condemn the efforts of society to ameliorate its condition do not content themselves with denying all efficacy in such efforts. This would at least be logical and would compel the advocates of social initiative to prove that such efforts may be successful. But the defenders of laissez faire almost uniformly take another step, fatal to their fundamental position, and insist that the interference which they condemn is injurious and pernicious in preventing in some way the successful operation of the benign tendencies of spontaneous natural law."
This is already a wall, I'll post this link if you want to read further. Ward, Applied Sociology, chaps. 2,3,7
How do we step back and argue against this if they treat natural law as a mythical thing? He goes on to say that they, LF people, cannot even prove their points because they are so esoteric along with conflating "social action" with "state action." Even saying that they are the same "in modern times."
"The fundamental error of the modern laissez faire school has been that of confounding the present state of the world with the state of the world in the eighteenth century. The civilized world, by whatever name its governments may be called, is virtually democratic, and state action, in the long run at least, is social action in a nearly literal sense." "Economists who have been studying only the political economy of the close of the eighteenth century are alarmed at this, mistaking it for the usurpations of a ruling class, and overlooking the fact that it is true social action." "The very ones who most strongly call for social action would probably admit the laissez faire doctrine in the abstract, but it has no influence on them when it conflicts with their interests. Nor can it be said that all this social initiative has been fruitless. Scarcely a step taken in this direction, from the management of the public finances to the transmission of letters, packages, and messages, has ever been reversed, and the greater part of them have proved so obviously beneficial that they are looked upon as much in the light of social necessities as is the public administration of criminal law, once also left to „private enterprise.“" "The fact is that the laissez faire doctrine is an ex parte doctrine. It looks at only one side of a two-sided fact. To a large extent it is arguing without an opponent." "The doctrine was undoubtedly salutary at the outset, and it is more or less useful still. It was primarily directed against the pretensions of a class. The action taken by that class can be called social action only in the sense that under all circumstances „the powers that be“ actually represent society.
"Economists who have been studying only the political economy of the close of the eighteenth century are alarmed at this, mistaking it for the usurpations of a ruling class, and overlooking the fact that it is true social action."
"The very ones who most strongly call for social action would probably admit the laissez faire doctrine in the abstract, but it has no influence on them when it conflicts with their interests. Nor can it be said that all this social initiative has been fruitless. Scarcely a step taken in this direction, from the management of the public finances to the transmission of letters, packages, and messages, has ever been reversed, and the greater part of them have proved so obviously beneficial that they are looked upon as much in the light of social necessities as is the public administration of criminal law, once also left to „private enterprise.“"
"The fact is that the laissez faire doctrine is an ex parte doctrine. It looks at only one side of a two-sided fact. To a large extent it is arguing without an opponent."
"The doctrine was undoubtedly salutary at the outset, and it is more or less useful still. It was primarily directed against the pretensions of a class. The action taken by that class can be called social action only in the sense that under all circumstances „the powers that be“ actually represent society.
This one is great too.
"What the laissez faire economists have done is to go over the long series of these social achievements and cull out a relatively small number of relatively unimportant ones which they declare to have been failures or to be doing harm to society. These are held up as the sufficient proof of the evils of social initiative. Some of them are doubtless failures, and one of the supposed fatal blows against the movement is the number of laws that have actually been repealed, as not accomplishing their purpose. Do not these rather show the wisdom of society in promptly correcting its mistakes when they are found to be such?" "A full and candid survey of this field, however, shows that society has always been marching forward in the one irreversible direction, and that its achievements are already multitudinous and of the utmost importance. Social achievement has been the condition to individual achievement, and all forms of achievement are at once the products and the proofs of the efficacy of effort. The „miserable laissez faire“ which seeks to check this natural flow of social energy has been appropriately called „moral curare“ and „social Nirvana.“ Over against this doctrine of laissez faire, which is now only a doctrine, stands that of faire marcher,* which has always been a policy, and without the recognition of which there could be no science of applied sociology."
"A full and candid survey of this field, however, shows that society has always been marching forward in the one irreversible direction, and that its achievements are already multitudinous and of the utmost importance. Social achievement has been the condition to individual achievement, and all forms of achievement are at once the products and the proofs of the efficacy of effort. The „miserable laissez faire“ which seeks to check this natural flow of social energy has been appropriately called „moral curare“ and „social Nirvana.“ Over against this doctrine of laissez faire, which is now only a doctrine, stands that of faire marcher,* which has always been a policy, and without the recognition of which there could be no science of applied sociology."
"Let us try again!! We know what we're doing this time!!"
Market ideology, not as an ideology, but as a kind of theology.
@OP: Any social theory is flawed that treats the State as exogenous to the social order (both neoclassical economics makes this mistake but so does "natural law" anarchism insofar as it treats the State as "artificial"). The State has clearly arisen within the context of Nature. The anarchist theory of the State is that it exists solely on the malformed ideas in people's heads which are locked into a sort of vicious circle fueled as they are by the State's own propaganda. But this view of the pernicious and "artificial" nature of the State's existence fails to take into account that the human being's susceptibility to such pernicious propaganda must then be counted as a property of human nature.
But this only goes to reinforce Rothbard's thesis that the central problem with the State is not merely utilitarian - it is really, at root, a moral problem. The moral problem goes to the individual's toleration of double-standards - as Hoppe says many times in his lectures, there is no mystery in anyone wanting to be a State, the mystery is that anyone tolerates subjugation to a State. This moral problem - being pervasive - is not unnatural. But neither is rape unnatural.
In fact, I believe we can trace the root of this problem back to humanity's rapidly changing (in biological terms) environment since the Agricultural Revolution. Humanity has been "thrust from Paradise" and I believe this is the root cause of the mismatch between human nature and its suitability for the environment in which it finds itself. In short, our moral sense is simply not adapted to our present environment.
But the view that all hope is, therefore, lost is mistaken - after all, human moral sense regarding rape and other forms of violence is maladapted, as well. But we have seen a steady decline in such behaviors that cannot possibly be explained by genetic changes alone because there simply haven't been enough generations. Instead, these changes are the result of the same process that thrust us from Paradise to begin with: language, culture, social norms, law, in short, human society. And this is where Bastiat's view (the classical Laissez-Faire view) comes into its own:
When we are certain that each one of the molecules composing a liquid has within it everything that is needed to determine the general level, we conclude that the simplest and surest way to obtain this level is not to interfere with the molecules. All those who accept as their starting point the thesis that men's interests are harmonious will agree that the practical solution to the social problem is simply not to thwart these interests or to try to redirect them.
Clayton -
The thing is, men's interests are not all harmonious.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
@Autolykos: But aren't they? A superficial view may show that they are inharmonious - I can, of course, gain at your loss by stealing from what you have produced. But the fact that theft is suppressed by the social order is evidence that human society is - like Bastiat's gas - seeking its own equilibrium, that is, constantly altering the nature of society such that the incentives facing the individual are more and more aligned with those of his neighbors.
The deadbolt is a beautiful illustration of this. Sure, I can steal your stuff... if I can defeat your deadbolt. But in the process of defeating the deadbolt, I must expend effort and time and this forces me to incur greater risks in the process of seeking to pilfer from you. The deadbolt is a product of human devising, that is, of the social order and is an example of how the social order is constantly altering the incentives facing the individual in such a way as to make his interests harmonious with those of all others.
This process occurs without central planning and direction. The government did not invent deadbolts, Lowjack, etc. And this is the central insight of the Laissez-Faire view - the process driving social order does not require "intervention", it moves forward relentlessly. This should not be confused with the Progressive narrative that "everything is always getting better and better" - regression certainly occurs. The point is not whether progress is monotonic but whether it is the result of centrally-planned, collective action (telos) or the result of uncoordinated action. And we can identify the reason why it is the result of uncoordinated action: because, as Bastiat points out, all the conditions for reaching equilibrium (harmonious social order) reside within each of us. We are each capable of language, adapting to social norms and law, engaging in division-of-labor and exchange, and so on.
I understand what you mean, Clayton, but I don't think that's the same as saying that men's interests all are or become harmonious. Social cooperation, which leads to the division of labor and so forth, obviously relies upon harmony of interests. But there's no guarantee for social cooperation.
I'm not trying to argue in favor of "intervention" or "interventionism". All I'm trying to say is that not everyone's interests are always harmonious with everyone else's. The question then is how to handle cases of non-harmonious interests, or conflicts.
@Autolykos
I think I see your criticism. Would I be correct in stating that your criticism was purely about whether or not all men's interests are harmonious?
All I'm trying to say is that not everyone's interests are always harmonious with everyone else's. The question then is how to handle cases of non-harmonious interests, or conflicts.
Well I won't direct you to a certain two threads by Clayton because I know you're very familiar with them . I don't think that it is necessary for all men to have harmonious interests, just as long as enough of the population seeks harmonious interests. I believe most people are happy to live by the silver rule (do not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you). If enough of society won't tolerate those who seek to gain by harm, then I think those people will be in a very small minority.
I think this is where the moral problem and propaganda enter. I really do believe most people are happy with the silver rule, but I also believe most people don't understand it's implications.
I think the issue is whether or not the general character of men's interests is harmonious or inharmonious. Is human social order - sans intervention - really characterized by the Hobbesian "war of all against all"? Of course there are individual instances of inharmonious behavior - clashes, fights, arguments - but the fact is that people generally get along and must have generally got along long before there were States as we know them (prior to the Agricultural Revolution), else we would not be here.
The ingredients for social cooperation are already present inside each individual's head. The implications of this are that the root causes of war do not lie in an inherent tendency within human beings to form unorganized mobs of marauders. This is in direct contradiction to modern theories of the origins of war - the root causes are nationalism, racism, xenophobia, religious fanaticism, etc. etc. In no case do modern theories of the origins of war blame the obvious and only culprit: States! Wherever the argument for these mob theories of war are weak, they engage in hand-waving and dismiss the whole problem as "very complex" and "mysterious".
As Rothbard, Hoppe et. al. have explored, this phenomenon is not an accident. This is court history promulgated and paid for by the State itself. Human nature is to blame because if we didn't blame human nature then we might start looking for individual humans to blame. Nobody theorizes that gang wars are the result of an overflow of tribal energy within gangs. It is well understood that gangs act primarily at the direction of their leaders who send their thugs into battle with other gangs in a calculated and purposive manner. Gang wars are primarily the result of calculation on the part of gang leaders.
But the same conclusion apparently does not generalize to the general populace. National wars are not primarily the result of the calculation on the part of national leaders. It's like a stampede at a soccer stadium... people just start grabbing guns and running over the borders to shoot each other.
gotlucky:I think I see your criticism. Would I be correct in stating that your criticism was purely about whether or not all men's interests are harmonious? [Emphasis added.]
Yes, you would be correct. My focus is on the use of the word "all". I treat it as being equivalent to the universal quantifier.
gotlucky:Well I won't direct you to a certain two threads by Clayton because I know you're very familiar with them . I don't think that it is necessary for all men to have harmonious interests, just as long as enough of the population seeks harmonious interests. I believe most people are happy to live by the silver rule (do not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you). If enough of society won't tolerate those who seek to gain by harm, then I think those people will be in a very small minority. I think this is where the moral problem and propaganda enter. I really do believe most people are happy with the silver rule, but I also believe most people don't understand it's implications.
While I agree with what I think is the general theme of the above, I think some clarification is in order. For example, I'm not quite sure what you, Clayton, or anyone else really means by "harmonious interests". From one point of view, I think we could say that there's a lot of disharmony in men's interests, due to scarcity. If I have an interest in buying a Ferrari, for example, and someone else owns a Ferrari but isn't interested in selling it, would you say that my interest is nevertheless harmonious with the other person's interest? Or would you say they're in conflict (because I want something that he has, but he doesn't want to give it to me)?
So I think it depends on the definitions being used for "harmony" and "conflict". On the one hand, "conflicting interests" could simply mean opposing interests, in which case I'd say it's hardly the case that anywhere near the vast majority of interests are ever in harmony. Otherwise, "conflicting interests" could mean interests in which there is currently violent struggle, and then I'd most certainly agree with you that the vast majority of interests are in harmony at any given time.
Regarding the silver rule: given Mises' treatment of action, not doing something is also an action, so in this context the silver rule is just a different way of expressing the golden rule. I think many/most people today don't understand the implications of the golden/silver rule because their critical (i.e. logical) thinking capacities have been eviscerated.
"The moral problem goes to the individual's toleration of double-standards - as Hoppe says many times in his lectures, there is no mystery in anyone wanting to be a State, the mystery is that anyone tolerates subjugation to a State."
Hmmmm now why might this be I wonder??
bloomj31:"The moral problem goes to the individual's toleration of double-standards - as Hoppe says many times in his lectures, there is no mystery in anyone wanting to be a State, the mystery is that anyone tolerates subjugation to a State." Hmmmm now why might this be I wonder??
It sounds to me like you already have an answer in mind to this question. Would you like to share it?
I really shouldn't indulge myself in these sorts of threads, tempting as they are.
This is a gem though: "In fact, I believe we can trace the root of this problem back to humanity's rapidly changing (in biological terms) environment since the Agricultural Revolution. Humanity has been "thrust from Paradise" and I believe this is the root cause of the mismatch between human nature and its suitability for the environment in which it finds itself. In short, our moral sense is simply not adapted to our present environment."
Ever the optimist.
Autolykos: While I agree with what I think is the general theme of the above, I think some clarification is in order. For example, I'm not quite sure what you, Clayton, or anyone else really means by "harmonious interests". From one point of view, I think we could say that there's a lot of disharmony in men's interests, due to scarcity. If I have an interest in buying a Ferrari, for example, and someone else owns a Ferrari but isn't interested in selling it, would you say that my interest is nevertheless harmonious with the other person's interest? Or would you say they're in conflict (because I want something that he has, but he doesn't want to give it to me)? So I think it depends on the definitions being used for "harmony" and "conflict". On the one hand, "conflicting interests" could simply mean opposing interests, in which case I'd say it's hardly the case that anywhere near the vast majority of interests are ever in harmony. Otherwise, "conflicting interests" could mean interests in which there is currently violent struggle, and then I'd most certainly agree with you that the vast majority of interests are in harmony at any given time.
I think "peaceful interests" might be a better phrase, then. I think most people do desire to live in a peaceful society, even if some don't. Does this make more sense?
Autolykos: Regarding the silver rule: given Mises' treatment of action, not doing something is also an action, so in this context the silver rule is just a different way of expressing the golden rule. I think many/most people today don't understand the implications of the golden/silver rule because their critical (i.e. logical) thinking capacities have been eviscerated.
I do think there is a distinction between the two rules. That the golden rule is positive and the silver rule negative is important. The way I see it, the golden rule has more to do with morality (e.g. I will tell you the truth so that you tell me the truth, I will be nice so that you will be nice), and the silver rule has more to do with lawfulness (e.g. I will not steal from you so that you will not steal from me, I will not hit you so that you will not hit me). Obviously, the silver rule does have something to do with morality, but I think it is more focused than the golden rule. The silver rule is very similar to the NAP, though there are slight differences.
Regarding the bolded statement: Sadly, I think very few people in society will ever reach the concept of anarchy through deduction. I think it is more likely people will have to experience an injustice done to them by the state before they begin to see how it is contrary to the golden/silver rules. Even then, most people would probably want to reform or replace it.
Clayton:I think the issue is whether or not the general character of men's interests is harmonious or inharmonious. Is human social order - sans intervention - really characterized by the Hobbesian "war of all against all"? Of course there are individual instances of inharmonious behavior - clashes, fights, arguments - but the fact is that people generally get along and must have generally got along long before there were States as we know them (prior to the Agricultural Revolution), else we would not be here.
I certainly don't think human nature is Hobbesian. Although I'm now wondering whether Hobbes' whole formulation succeeded due to equivocating over the meaning of "conflict" (see my reply to GotLucky). Could Hobbes have been implicitly referring to simply the opposition of individuals' interests?
On the other hand, people have generally gotten along even with states as we now know them. I think this actually makes perfect sense if one looks at states in terms of extended families writ large and abstract.
Clayton:The ingredients for social cooperation are already present inside each individual's head. The implications of this are that the root causes of war do not lie in an inherent tendency within human beings to form unorganized mobs of marauders. This is in direct contradiction to modern theories of the origins of war - the root causes are nationalism, racism, xenophobia, religious fanaticism, etc. etc. In no case do modern theories of the origins of war blame the obvious and only culprit: States! Wherever the argument for these mob theories of war are weak, they engage in hand-waving and dismiss the whole problem as "very complex" and "mysterious". As Rothbard, Hoppe et. al. have explored, this phenomenon is not an accident. This is court history promulgated and paid for by the State itself. Human nature is to blame because if we didn't blame human nature then we might start looking for individual humans to blame. Nobody theorizes that gang wars are the result of an overflow of tribal energy within gangs. It is well understood that gangs act primarily at the direction of their leaders who send their thugs into battle with other gangs in a calculated and purposive manner. Gang wars are primarily the result of calculation on the part of gang leaders. But the same conclusion apparently does not generalize to the general populace. National wars are not primarily the result of the calculation on the part of national leaders. It's like a stampede at a soccer stadium... people just start grabbing guns and running over the borders to shoot each other.
From what I understand, the original form of war was the blood feud or vendetta - two or more familial groups in violent conflict with one another. Each side feels somehow wronged by the other side and takes matters into its own hands. But of course, even among familial groups, people can manipulate circumstances to suit their own ends. This is especially possible with the recognized leader(s) of a familial group, which leads more or less straightforwardly into national leaders calculating whether to go to war.
I think the "mob theory" of warfare is actually true, in a way - where the mobs are states with certain leaders. But that also means human nature is to blame, again in a way. Since the state leaders are humans, their behavior is human behavior, which makes it a based on human nature.
bloomj31:I really shouldn't indulge myself in these sorts of threads, tempting as they are. This is a gem though: "In fact, I believe we can trace the root of this problem back to humanity's rapidly changing (in biological terms) environment since the Agricultural Revolution. Humanity has been "thrust from Paradise" and I believe this is the root cause of the mismatch between human nature and its suitability for the environment in which it finds itself. In short, our moral sense is simply not adapted to our present environment." Ever the optimist.
So what's your view here? You didn't answer my question though.
gotlucky:I think "peaceful interests" might be a better phrase, then. I think most people do desire to live in a peaceful society, even if some don't. Does this make more sense?
Yes, I think it does. Furthermore, I think that the vast majority of people desire to live in a peaceful society - at least the vast majority of the time - because violence is expensive. It's not only expensive in terms of the consequences one can face if he loses; it's also expensive simply in terms of the effort required to employ it. We can see this throughout history, in fact. The problem of how to finance and otherwise supply war efforts comes up time and time again.
gotlucky:I do think there is a distinction between the two rules. That the golden rule is positive and the silver rule negative is important. The way I see it, the golden rule has more to do with morality (e.g. I will tell you the truth so that you tell me the truth, I will be nice so that you will be nice), and the silver rule has more to do with lawfulness (e.g. I will not steal from you so that you will not steal from me, I will not hit you so that you will not hit me). Obviously, the silver rule does have something to do with morality, but I think it is more focused than the golden rule. The silver rule is very similar to the NAP, though there are slight differences.
Hmm, I don't think I explained myself well enough before. Let me try again.
If we both accept (at least arguendo) the praxeological view of "action", then it's literally impossible for a human being to not act at all, because every "inaction" is just another, perhaps opposing, "action" from the praxeological point of view. So in other words, if one isn't doing one thing (i.e. acting in one way), he's necessarily doing something else (i.e. acting in another way). With this in mind, then, "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you" is functionally equivalent to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
To use your examples, both being nice and not stealing involve conscious decisions, so they both count as "actions" in praxeology.
gotlucky:Regarding the bolded statement: Sadly, I think very few people in society will ever reach the concept of anarchy through deduction. I think it is more likely people will have to experience an injustice done to them by the state before they begin to see how it is contrary to the golden/silver rules. Even then, most people would probably want to reform or replace it.
Maybe I have greater faith in other people than you do. :P But still, our way of looking at things is basically like taking the "mainstream" point of view and turning it inside-out. Depending on how entrenched the "mainstream" viewpoint is in a given individual, it might be very difficult and/or time-consuming for him to do that.
One common thread I've encountered with people of all stripes is the desire for accountability for authority. So one way to reach people IMO is to challenge both their views on authority itself and also their views on how authority can be held accountable.
Autolykos: Yes, I think it does. Furthermore, I think that the vast majority of people desire to live in a peaceful society - at least the vast majority of the time - because violence is expensive. It's not only expensive in terms of the consequences one can face if he loses; it's also expensive simply in terms of the effort required to employ it. We can see this throughout history, in fact. The problem of how to finance and otherwise supply war efforts comes up time and time again.
Agreed.
Autolykos: If we both accept (at least arguendo) the praxeological view of "action", then it's literally impossible for a human being to not act at all, because every "inaction" is just another, perhaps opposing, "action" from the praxeological point of view. So in other words, if one isn't doing one thing (i.e. acting in one way), he's necessarily doing something else (i.e. acting in another way). With this in mind, then, "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you" is functionally equivalent to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
I think I see what you are saying. If I am passing a dying man on the road, I might say to myself, "I should help because I would want to be helped" (golden rule), or I might say, "I should not leave this man to die, because I would not want to be left to die" (silver rule). Is this what you are saying?
Perhaps the difference between the golden and silver rules is that the silver rule is clearer (at least to me). Consider:
Golden Rule: I will participate in voluntary exchange with others because I want others to participate in voluntary exchange with me.
Silver Rule: I will not steal from others because I do not want others to steal from me.
I think you are right after all. They share the same meaning. I think the negative form is clearer in terms of what one should or should not do.
Autolykos: One common thread I've encountered with people of all stripes is the desire for accountability for authority. So one way to reach people IMO is to challenge both their views on authority itself and also their views on how authority can be held accountable.
I like it.
autolykos: So what's your view here? You didn't answer my question though.
My view is far more cynical and misanthropic.
gotlucky:I think I see what you are saying. If I am passing a dying man on the road, I might say to myself, "I should help because I would want to be helped" (golden rule), or I might say, "I should not leave this man to die, because I would not want to be left to die" (silver rule). Is this what you are saying?
Basically, yes. To do anything in particular means to not do anything else. (Some actions are "stackable" though. For example, I can sit in a chair and read a book at the same time.)
gotlucky:Perhaps the difference between the golden and silver rules is that the silver rule is clearer (at least to me). Consider: Golden Rule: I will participate in voluntary exchange with others because I want others to participate in voluntary exchange with me. Silver Rule: I will not steal from others because I do not want others to steal from me. I think you are right after all. They share the same meaning. I think the negative form is clearer in terms of what one should or should not do.
In terms of rhetorical effect, negatives typically carry greater "weight" than positives. People respond more strongly to negatives than to positives, just as we avoid pain more strongly than we seek out pleasure. I think that's why moral commands are typically expressed as "don't X", where X is a verb or verb phrase that's intended to connote immorality.
gotlucky:I like it.
Thanks! I've had at least some success with it, myself. It depends on who I'm talking to, of course, and I don't expect him/her to become a voluntaryist based only on that. But I'm not an elitist, and that's because of my experiences in talking with others. I've found that many concepts that are seen as "hard" turn out to be much easier for "average" people to grasp when expressed without any mystifying jargon and so forth. So I've concluded that innate differences in intelligence among people are over-inflated (to say the least). A lot of that is just different backgrounds, experiences, and vocabulary and word usage (i.e. semantics).
bloomj31:My view is far more cynical and misanthropic.
Okay, and why is that? Could you please elaborate?
Autolykos: In terms of rhetorical effect, negatives typically carry greater "weight" than positives. People respond more strongly to negatives than to positives, just as we avoid pain more strongly than we seek out pleasure. I think that's why moral commands are typically expressed as "don't X", where X is a verb or verb phrase that's intended to connote immorality.
Makes sense.
Autolykos: Thanks! I've had at least some success with it, myself. It depends on who I'm talking to, of course, and I don't expect him/her to become a voluntaryist based only on that. But I'm not an elitist, and that's because of my experiences in talking with others. I've found that many concepts that are seen as "hard" turn out to be much easier for "average" people to grasp when expressed without any mystifying jargon and so forth. So I've concluded that innate differences in intelligence among people are over-inflated (to say the least). A lot of that is just different backgrounds, experiences, and vocabulary and word usage (i.e. semantics).
Intelligence is a funny thing. Unfortunately, most people think of intelligence as book smart, but there are so many different ways people can be smart or dumb. It's amazing that someone like Einstein can make so many breakthroughs in his field but become a complete idiot in other fields. Also unfortunately, the only person that I've had any real effect on is my girlfriend. Actually, I suppose that's pretty fortunate after all!
autolykos: Okay, and why is that? Could you please elaborate?
Well, my experiences with people have led me to far different conclusions than the ones Clayton puts forth about the character of men's interest and their "moral sense."
I do not see good in man. I see fear.
*shrug - Any moral assessment of man qua man is an arbitrary aesthetic judgment... it's like saying "I do not see good in tigers... I see fear."
Meaningful moral assessment can only occur at the level of the subject experience of the individual (that is, pleasure and pain or satisfaction and want). We tend to refer to a society characterized by widespread cooperation as a "civilized" "decent" or "good" society and vice-versa but it must be understood that this assessment is fundamentally aesthetic in nature - it is not in the same category as moral assessment based on subjective experience.
The only way that social cooperation is possible is when the social order is disposed in such a way that the subjective morality of the individual leads him to social cooperation. That is, it is impossible for social cooperation to exist in a social order where not cooperating leads to greater individual satisfaction than cooperating does.
bloomj31:Well, my experiences with people have led me to far different conclusions than the ones Clayton puts forth about the character of men's interest and their "moral sense." I do not see good in man. I see fear.
With all due respect, are you being deliberately vague? If so, why?
Autolykos: With all due respect, are you being deliberately vague? If so, why?
You can't spot his logical fallacies if he doesn't say anything!
I'm being vague because this subject seems silly to me. I do not feel any confusion as to why governments exist nor why people are willing to deal with the "moral double standard" a state implies. It just seems self evident to me as to why governments exist and persist through time. I also do not see any reason to explain why trade exists. It also seems self evident.
why people are willing to deal with the "moral double standard" a state implies.
This I'd like to hear - pray tell, why do people accept the morall double-standard of the State?
For the same reason people do anything: based on their values, it's worth it.
The government is like a sword that cuts the hands of those who wield it. I calculate that the pain in my hands is worth the pain I am able to cause by wielding the sword.
At some level I believe statists all understand this. They calculate that the damage done to their hands is worth the damage they are able to deal to those they don't like.
Taxes are an annoyance but a tolerable one. This is why people are willing to accept the double standard.
Taxes are an annoyance
I can barely afford an entry-level, one-bedroom apartment where I live and I pay nearly 50% of my income in taxes. I don't understand how anyone can say taxes are merely an "annoyance". To give you an idea of the utter absurdity of our tax system, I got a $800 bonus this year... $350 of that went to taxes leaving $450. But then when I filled out my tax return over the weekend guess how much I ended up owing? That's right, $450. I'm a fairly typical earner - there must be millions of people with exactly thiis same kind of story.
I guess I should be happy that I got the bonus so that it could take care of my tax bill instead of coming out of my bank account. Yay.
I can see why taxes would be more annoying to you then. Most of what I pay is in capital gains.
What's that saying? "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing."
bloomj31:I'm being vague because this subject seems silly to me. I do not feel any confusion as to why governments exist nor why people are willing to deal with the "moral double standard" a state implies. It just seems self evident to me as to why governments exist and persist through time. I also do not see any reason to explain why trade exists. It also seems self evident.
Whether you think the subject is silly has nothing to do with explaining to me your position on the subject. I see no good reason why you can't fully elucidate your position, regardless of how silly you think the subject is.
Now then, in a way I agree with you - we all put up with the state because we think we'll be better off doing so. But isn't that akin to giving a thief my money when he has a gun to my head? My point here is that the way things are and the way we think things ought to be can be two completely different things. I'll submit to you that I wouldn't give my money to a thief, after he puts a gun to my head and demands it, because I think he therefore deserves it or is otherwise justified in his actions toward me. In other words, even though I may give the thief something, I don't think I owe him anything.
However, I don't think Clayton is really wondering about why people simply choose to put up with the state. I think we all agree that that's pretty easy to understand. So I think what he's really wondering about is why so many people not only put up with the state, but why they believe in the state. That is, why do they think it's necessary, if not also right and good? How do they reconcile that belief with the moral double standard that the state nevertheless presents?
First question: Why don't you think you owe the thief anything?
Because I don't consider it legitimate for him to put a gun to my head and demand my money.
Who are you to decide what is and is not a legitimate claim?
Who is he to decide that? Who are you to decide it?
There is no objective, empirical existence regarding legitimate claims per se. Legitimacy is a value judgement, therefore it's subjective.
Well his subjective claim is backed by force, what is yours backed by?
That's irrelevant to whether I think his claim is legitimate.
Who cares about what you think?
(I'm not being mean, honest question.)
I do.
Ok.
You ask " why do they think it's necessary, if not also right and good?"
This is a lot of ideas boiled into one question. I ask first: necessary for what?
I hope my last answer satisfied that line of questioning. My point was that, of course no one else has to care what I think - but who, if anyone, else does is not necessarily relevant to what I think.
bloomj31:You ask " why do they think it's necessary, if not also right and good?" This is a lot of ideas boiled into one question. I ask first: necessary for what?
I'd say necessary for social order. Many (if not most) people today* see the state as the foundation of civilization. Were it not for the state, they believe, people would be constantly at each other's throats. All morality and decency would be thrown out the window in a massive Hobbesian war of all against all. Order must be imposed upon chaos - it cannot simply emerge therefrom.
* Note: I use the qualifier "today" because I see no reason to assume that moral authoritarianism or any other form of authoritarianism is ingrained in human nature.