After giving it a lot of thought, I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism.
However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force. It's a conundrum to me.
But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right.
I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. If an argument can be made to allow one thing to happen, it can be made for another thing to happen. It's simple cause and effect.
Because violating someone's rights is immoral.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Because violating someone's rights is immoral.
Why? Says whom?
Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Because violating someone's rights is immoral. Why? Says whom?
Tens of thousand of years of collective human experience.
Our internal sense of morality isn't just a coincidence, its an evoluntary adaptation for social cooperation.
Peace
I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
JonBostwick: Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Because violating someone's rights is immoral. Why? Says whom? Tens of thousand of years of collective human experience. Our internal sense of morality isn't just a coincidence, its an evoluntary adaptation for social cooperation.
I don't experience anything like internal morality. I don't think you do either. You just ask yourself "what's going to get me what I want?" And you do that.
Juan:I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. OR maybe morality and logic are intertwined somehow.
If they were, God would smite me if I killed someone. Or if anyone killed another.
Jacob Bloom: However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force. It's a conundrum to me.
Society is a broad topic. What specifically in do you think is untenable without centralized force? Chuches? Roads? Airports? Museums? Cabs? Beer? Hot Dogs? Apple pie? Shopping malls? Fine literture?
Since you believe the free market works in most of the above cases it would help to have a more specific objection.
Jacob Bloom:I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic.
Jacob Bloom:I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism.
Without making a moral value judgment how do you know that infringing on personal choice and/or fascism are bad?
Jacob Bloom: Juan:I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. OR maybe morality and logic are intertwined somehow. If they were, God would smite me if I killed someone. Or if anyone killed another.
Juan is not a theist nor was he promoting the idea of theism. I think you misunderstood him
Nerditarian: Jacob Bloom: However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force. It's a conundrum to me. Society is a broad topic. What specifically in do you think is untenable without centralized force? Chuches? Roads? Airports? Museums? Cabs? Beer? Hot Dogs? Apple pie? Shopping malls? Fine literture? Since you believe the free market works in most of the above cases it would help to have a more specific objection. Jacob Bloom:I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. Jacob Bloom:I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism. Without making a moral value judgment how do you know that infringing on personal choice and/or fascism are bad?
1. Wars, courts, police. Infrastructure.
2. Because voluntary selfishness makes economies run. If you coerce people, you take away their ability to make decisions about what's best for them. Thus you bring economies to their knees. This is undesirable. Morality is about absolutes. I don't think in absolutes. I merely ask "is this the best way to get what I want?" I know there are more effective ways to get what I want than by killing people and stealing from them. I can just convince them to give things to me. And then they'll be there the next time to give me more.
Jacob Bloom: JonBostwick: Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Because violating someone's rights is immoral. Why? Says whom? Tens of thousand of years of collective human experience. Our internal sense of morality isn't just a coincidence, its an evoluntary adaptation for social cooperation. I don't experience anything like internal morality. I don't think you do either. You just ask yourself "what's going to get me what I want?" And you do that.
So you have no conscience? What keeps you from stealing? Running off the road everyone who cuts you off? Sleeping with your brother's wife/girlfriend?
Nerditarian: Jacob Bloom: Juan:I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. OR maybe morality and logic are intertwined somehow. If they were, God would smite me if I killed someone. Or if anyone killed another. Juan is not a theist nor was he promoting the idea of theism. I think you misunderstood him
All laws require an enforcer. No one enforces morals. However, if I kill someone, another person will say "I don't want him killing me or anyone else, we need to lock him up!" So they do. Morality isn't enforced, logic is. Before you can murder twice you have to murder once.
Jacob: Juan: OR maybe morality and logic are intertwined somehow. If they were, God would smite me if I killed someone. Or if anyone killed another.
Juan: OR maybe morality and logic are intertwined somehow.
Jacob Bloom:They also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism.
That's democracy.
Jacob Bloom:But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right.
What books have you read on Anarcho-Capitalism? Don't be afraid of saying none.
Nerditarian: Jacob Bloom: JonBostwick: Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Because violating someone's rights is immoral. Why? Says whom? Tens of thousand of years of collective human experience. Our internal sense of morality isn't just a coincidence, its an evoluntary adaptation for social cooperation. I don't experience anything like internal morality. I don't think you do either. You just ask yourself "what's going to get me what I want?" And you do that. So you have no conscience? What keeps you from stealing? Running off the road everyone who cuts you off? Sleeping with your brother's wife/girlfriend?
I have an instinct about what I can and cannot do and get away with. I have an instinct about what is the best way to get what I want. I can afford things without stealing. Stealing big things is risky. Cutting people off the road is unnecessary. My brother doesn't have a girlfriend. If he did, and I thought she was hot and that he'd never find out, I'd probably screw her.
Conza88: Jacob Bloom:They also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism. That's democracy. Jacob Bloom:But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right. What books have you read on Anarcho-Capitalism? Don't be afraid of saying none.
Democracy can be that. It could also not be that.
I'm not interested in anarcho capitalism.
Juan: Jacob: Juan: OR maybe morality and logic are intertwined somehow. If they were, God would smite me if I killed someone. Or if anyone killed another. Dunno. I said nothing about god... At any rate, having a system which is not consistent, i.e., a system that can overrule individual rights in the name of 'the majority' doesn't sound like a good idea after all eh ? =P
That's never what I wanted. But I realize now that I can't argue for free markets and argue that the majority is best served overriding the will of the minority with an army.
Jacob Bloom:I'm not interested in anarcho capitalism.
Then you're not interested in Freedom. What are you interested in? Imposing your will on others, right?
Jacob Bloom:All laws require an enforcer. No one enforces morals. However, if I kill someone, another person will say "I don't want him killing me or anyone else, we need to lock him up!" So they do. Morality isn't enforced, logic is. Before you can murder twice you have to murder once.
Seriously, get off the forum - seek out the books that deal with anarchy & law, free pdf's, go read them (I can't do it for you) then come back..
Hint:
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer
Conza88: Jacob Bloom:I'm not interested in anarcho capitalism. Then you're not interested in Freedom. What are you interested in? Imposing your will on others, right? Jacob Bloom:All laws require an enforcer. No one enforces morals. However, if I kill someone, another person will say "I don't want him killing me or anyone else, we need to lock him up!" So they do. Morality isn't enforced, logic is. Before you can murder twice you have to murder once. Seriously, get off the forum - seek out the books that deal with anarchy & law, free pdf's, go read them (I can't do it for you) then come back.. Hint: Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehil (pdf) (audiobook) For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard (pdf) (text) (audiobook) Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pdf) The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (pdf) Read. Listen. Learn. "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer
I'm interested in getting what I want. It's really irrelevant to me how I get it. Except that certain ways are less problematic than others.
By the way, morals limit freedom. Because you can't do whatever you want anymore.
Anyways, I'm hungry, I'm gonna go eat. Just thought I'd tell you guys that I'd been thinking about your philosophy.
Jacob Bloom:2. Because voluntary selfishness makes economies run. If you coerce people, you take away their ability to make decisions about what's best for them. Thus you bring economies to their knees. This is undesirable. Morality is about absolutes. I don't think in absolutes. I merely ask "is this the best way to get what I want?" I know there are more effective ways to get what I want than by killing people and stealing from them. I can just convince them to give things to me. And then they'll be there the next time to give me more.
Dictatorship is a great way to get what you want if you are the dictator. However, you seem to be concerning yourself with the whole of any society. Seems like moral reasoning to me by any other name.
Jacob Bloom:1. Wars, courts, police. Infrastructure.
Infrastructure? Supply and demand. If people want a road to get from point A to point B and have the means to pay for it some enterprising cement man will build one. If people like trains and entrepreneurs perceive the investment in railroads will make them money they will do it and thus meet someone else's demands. Is the objection more complex still?
Insurance. Simply put, you would have yourself and your property insured against crime and war.
Crime: Should someone steal your Rolex you put in a claim to your insurance company. The insurance company would then hire detectives to find the perp and ask him to return the watch. Should the accused deny their guilt and not wish to hand it over we reach a problem. Should the detectives confiscate it without proof he will call his insurance company who will call other detectives. Not good, not profitable and a big mess. What is to be done? Well, the two insurance companies agree on some arbiter they consider nonbiased (i.e a privately run court) to decide the matter. It will hear proof as to the proper title to the Rolex and determine who owns it like a normal court would. As a condition of arbitration, both the parties and the insurance companies would agree to be bound by the arbitration.
War: Similarly, you would insure your life and property against the threat of war. Your insurance company would charge you a premimum based on the threat of war, how much damage would be done, etc. etc. similar to an insurance company insuring you against the risk of a flood. Now if Ace Insurance hires Gunny Defense to defend it's client this acts as a detterent allowing it to lower it's premiums and reap reward on the market.
These are the most barebones basic arguments. While myself and others will be happy to answer your questions I suggest this short ) exposition on the topic.
Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy
This book inclues a 28 page essay on Private Law (Courts, etc.) and a 20 page essay on Private Defense. I hope you read one or both at your convenience.
Jacob Bloom:I'm interested in getting what I want. It's really irrelevant to me how I get it. Except that certain ways are less problematic than others.
It's irrelevant whether you spend time in jail? Interesting... well hate to burst your bubble bubba, but in a Libertarian society it's going to be harder for you to get away with violating someone elses rights.. Justice would be infinitely more accessible.
So you're a libertine then. I love it how you guys try talk the talk, but never walk the walk... to scared of the consequences lol.
Jacob Bloom:Why? Says whom?
Roy A. Childs, Jr.:The question of how free market anarchism would work is secondary to establishing the evils of government.
I agree with this quote. If government is evil, then there is only one choice left: anarchism.
To keep this debate simple I would argue that government is immoral and evil because it necessitates the initiation of force. If you accept that initiating force is evil, then you must reject the state; the two are mutually exclusive.
Why should you accept the notion that the initiation of force is wrong? For me it's easy.
When looking at amounts of anything, there are but three options: some, all, or none. I reject the notion that all initiatory coercion is acceptable, because it would obviously devolve into chaos, where anything is justifiable, at any time, under any circumstances.
As for some initiatory coercion being justifiable, I would argue that this notion goes against our human inclinations towards peace, and generally what we are taught as kids (e.g. don't hit your friends). A better argument, though, is that there is no system for determining when aggression is acceptable that stands up to any sort of scrutiny. Is it acceptable when preferences are weighed against each other? How about happiness? Should we maximize happiness?
Can you measure happiness?
See what I mean: they're easy to pick apart. Accepting that no initiatory coercion is acceptable not only makes sense to me, but it's the only consistent position that can stand up to scrutiny. Until someone shows me a better system, or proves that it can be objectively established as a right, then I'm going with the NAP and market anarchism.
p.s. There are books out there on polycentric law, private protection, etc. There is a strong utilitarian case to be made for anarchism. Start here with Professor Hoppe's great list of reading on voluntaryism.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html
Hope this helps.
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
Dictatorships are undesirable to me. I'm not going to be the dictator.
All that sounds nice, but I can't imagine it ever working.
Anyways, I'm out of here.
Jacob Bloom:By the way, morals limit freedom. Because you can't do whatever you want anymore.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Why? Says whom?Oh sheesh, we're not going back to might makes right again, are we?
Might makes possible. There is no right and wrong. Just what works and what doesn't. Force is messy.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:By the way, morals limit freedom. Because you can't do whatever you want anymore.So what? We're about liberty.
So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?
Jacob Bloom:Might makes possible. There is no right and wrong. Just what works and what doesn't. Force is messy.
So sick of their bs. Who breeds these fools?
Jacob Bloom:So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?
Conza88: Jacob Bloom:I'm interested in getting what I want. It's really irrelevant to me how I get it. Except that certain ways are less problematic than others. It's irrelevant whether you spend time in jail? Interesting... well hate to burst your bubble bubba, but in a Libertarian society it's going to be harder for you to get away with violating someone elses rights.. Justice would be infinitely more accessible. So you're a libertine then. I love it how you guys try talk the talk, but never walk the walk... to scared of the consequences lol.
Again, spending time in jail is obviously undesirable. I'm pretty sure this current system makes me feel more fear of consequence than what you guys are talking about.
And I do what I think is necessary. That doesn't always mean fighting. I walk the walk everyday of my life.
Conza88: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Why? Says whom?Oh sheesh, we're not going back to might makes right again, are we? So sick of their bs. Who breeds these fools?
I've never said might makes right. I've said might makes possible. There's a difference.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?We don't.
Yes you do. Morals limit choice. Choice is key to freedom.
Jacob Bloom:Just thought I'd tell you guys that I'd been thinking about your philosophy.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Might makes possible. There is no right and wrong. Just what works and what doesn't. Force is messy.Ah. Moral nihilism. Let me know how that works when someone steals all your stuff and then you hypocritically claim it was wrong for that to happen, since there's no right and wrong, might makes possible and there is only what works and what doesn't.
I don't care about right and wrong. Someone steals my stuff, I'm calling the cops. They come and help me because that's their job. Or I go get the stuff back myself. Another messy proposition.
So you have no emotional reaction to things like the Holocaust? I'd say you've evidenced to the contrary.
We can play moral relativsm v. moral absolutism another day. However please consider this Jacob.
Jacob Bloom:Force is messy.
Fine. This is itself a principle if followed consistently should lead you to the Anarchist side. If force is messy/inefficient (something you recognized before when you praised voluntary economies) and the State provision of defense/justice requres force then what is it? Messy/inefficient. Why is it messy/inefficent again? Because it's an involuntary monopoly. So how can we relieve ourselves of this messiness and inefficiency? By allowing a free market in protection of private property from crime and war just as the free market is optimal in other ways. If you accept the above a priori you must be an anarchist.
Jacob Bloom:Yes you do. Morals limit choice. Choice is key to freedom.
Morals do not limit choice, they guide choice. I can still choose to kill someone, but a moral code keeps me from doing so. I'm still 'free to choose.'