Political Theory

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

K.C. Farmer — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:19:23 GMT

There is a natural behavior mechanism at work that opposes things that are different. It's the same mechanism that attracts people to groups or government. The additional feature that government brings is the ability to coerce others without risk.

As much as people may try to be objective, it's against human nature, which is largely subjective. While you can go about life with an objective thinking mindset, you still make decisions and act based on subjective thought.

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

MadMiser — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:25:41 GMT

As far as I'm aware, monogamy was a response to sexually transmitted infections that, like most other human infectious diseases, became prevalent when people started urbanising, packed tightly together in cities alongside many other humans and animals. Monogamy was, and still is, one of the most effective ways to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections. The theory is urbanised societies that did not develop a culture of monogamy would have been crippled by STIs, giving monogamous societies an evolutionary advantage, and thus ultimately allowing them to dominate the urbanised world. Assuming this were the correct explanation for the cultural prevalence of monogamy and the nuclear family, then if the free market found a cure or effective prophylactic for all STIs, monogamy would no longer serve the cultural purpose for which it evolved, and if non-monogamous families had more children, then they'd ultimately come to dominate, and the culture would change (cultural evolution). If however monogamy is due to some inherent biological preference in humans, rather than a cultural thing, then it's unlikely family structures would change significantly, regardless of whether or not the State regulated marriage. So that'd ultimately determine the answer: are human biological preferences closer to those of free-loving bonobos, or of mating-for-life gibbons? Likely, preferences would vary amongst individuals, and so the market would provide a variety of marriage/relationship options, much as it provides variety in other consumer goods.

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:33:24 GMT

Communal dwellings and alternative family structures certainly had their place in other times and cultures. Although perhaps there is some population "critical mass" after which these social arrangements tend to break down and factionalize. I'm no socioligist, so I'm not sure.

Some links:

Native American Long House

Band Society

Polygamy

History of Patriarchy

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

MadMiser — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:45:15 GMT

"No, the LTV long predates Marx; advocated by both Smith and Ricardo."

Ah, okay. Still, it doesn't change the fact that under the labour theory of value, an exact measurement of value is impossible, as far as I'm aware (much as Marxists could never agree on a mathematically exact amount of 'exploitation' occurring at a given wage). Whereas the subjective theory of value can determine value exactly: value is the price buyers are willing to pay for something. As value in the LTV is not accurately measurable, that is why I refer to it as an 'objective' theory of value, as it assumes that some individual's personal concept of value is universally applicable, that 'value' is an objective thing, like 'justice' or 'perfection' - things which in reality only exist in the minds of individual humans, and are not measurable (much as how socialism is an objective theory of value, in the sense that it assumes socialists' sense of 'fairness' is universally -objectively- applicable). As opposed to STV, which assumes the only value of somebody's labour is the value others place on it, expressed in the price they are willing to pay. STV doesn't abstract out any universal notion of 'value' and say it is the 'right' value, and hence is not an objective theory of value in that sense.

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

Laotzu del Zinn — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:21:43 GMT

Isn't the LTV just a way of attempting to philosophically justify the idea that "Y derives by far the largest benefit from this"? By looking at things on a very short timescale, and not accounting for the work previously done by Y in obtaining the capital to create X's job and in taking the risk of the venture's failure, and also not accounting for the fact that if not for Y, X's job wouldn't exist?

No, the LTV long predates Marx; advocated by both Smith and Ricardo.

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

MadMiser — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:14:56 GMT

"No, sorry, but it's not. It's based off seeing "x works his ass off daily, y really doesn't work all that hard. Y derives by far the largest benefit from this." This is as true from an STV viewpoint as it is an LTV."

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

Laotzu del Zinn — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:34:08 GMT

The socialist/communist ‘exploitation’ is based on the labor theory of value which is nonsense.

No, sorry, but it's not. It's based off seeing "x works his ass off daily, y really doesn't work all that hard. Y derives by far the largest benefit from this." This is as true from an STV viewpoint as it is an LTV.

(Also, most STV arguments against the LTV are straw men; STV talks about prices and calls it value, LTV takes into account exchange value, and adds on it use-value. I'm more of a proponent of STV, than LTV. But seriously "subjective theory" is a contradiciton in terms.)

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

MadMiser — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:27:04 GMT

If the nuclear family is just another tool of control, and home-schooling is the best option, I wonder how many anarchists support alternative familial arrangements, such as group marriage? From an economic standpoint, it'd be far more cost-effective to have one family of 6 adults and 12 children living in a single domicile, than to have three families living in separate domiciles of 2 adults and 2 kids each. The six adult family could easily afford to have one or two parents stay home to raise and school the kids whilst the others worked. Empirically speaking, dual parent households generally have better child-rearing outcomes than single parent ones, so why not the more parents, the better? It'd also be closer to how children were reared in paleolithic times. State regulation of marriage as a two-person institution limits innovation, as does any State regulation, so in an anarchist society, mightn't other forms of marriage become more common, if they were found to better suit the needs of the individuals in question? Considering how in much of the developed world fertility rates are below replacement, to the extent that this is due to the expenses involved in child rearing, any innovation to the family system that reduced child rearing costs would surely be a good thing.

Interesting psychological term relating to determinism and personal responsibility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control

"Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from their own behavior and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine events. Those with a high internal locus of control have better control of their behavior, tend to exhibit more political behaviors, and are more likely to attempt to influence other people than those with a high external (or low internal respectively) locus of control. Those with a high internal locus of control are more likely to assume that their efforts will be successful. They are more active in seeking information and knowledge concerning their situation."

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

Eric080 — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 01:48:30 GMT

You could maybe make a sociological/empirical case that, if people didn't believe in objective morality, they would be less inclined to use violence to enforce their preferences (like prohibiting sodomy or prostitution or something). They wouldn't actually spend resources on stopping it because it's not that important to the mass of people that these law services cater to if they believe the action to be amoral. On the other hand, people could be more likely to lie, cheat, or steal if they don't feel inhibited. I believe there have been studies that show that subjects who are enticed to believe in determinism moreso than free will are more likely to be aggressive and feel as if they are out of control of the events that shape their lives (an unrelated philosophical problem, but somewhat tied in to personal responsibility in the same way that nihilism may be).

I think the problem isn't necessarily morality, but it's inconsistent or faulty ideas of morality. I kind of come from a fictionalist/Nietzschean camp when it comes to this topic, although my inclinations toward libertarian political morality feel very real to me.

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:56:06 GMT

I can tell you from experience, there are plenty of anarchists who are all about objective morality. I spent most of my time on these forums arguing with all of them!

Let's think about the action axiom. We all act to some degree, yes? Since we lack omniscience, we never know if any action we take is the "correct" one, i.e. the one that will alleviate our suffering the most. We can take an educated guess, but that's about the best we can do. To the actor, this guess becomes the "right" thing to do. Of course, this can become a problem if people decide that their guesses are so right, and that their satisfaction so important, they are justified in coercing others into their way of thinking. I think it's called "being an asshole".

Now, the apparatus of the state is not a "actor". It has no goals, no objectives. It is a tool; like a knife, or a gun. It is the hall pass for violent compulsion. Obviously, this is very powerful tool. The assholes know this. That's why they are always clamoring and struggling with one another to get their grubby paws on the levers.

So, in order to be left alone in this world, you have two options:

Get rid of assholes, or convince people not to be assholes (good luck)

Get rid of the tools that enable assholes to become so powerful (somewhat more likely, but not much)

The patriarchial, "nuclear family" is just another tool of control, like a "mini-state". "Not under this roof, young man!"

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

Autolykos — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:33:19 GMT

Sorry I took so long to respond to this.

I think not sending our own children to public schools (or their private-school lookalikes) is definitely a good thing to do. Homeschooling would be the best option IMO, if you can afford it. Aside from that, I think the only other things we can legitimately do are proselytize our philosophy to others and defend ourselves from others when we are able or find it prudent to do so.

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

MadMiser — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:44:25 GMT

Very true, but what could be done to prevent children being subjected to such coercive upbringings? We're not statists; it's not like we could use force (legislation) to make parents raise their kids in a certain way, or have them raised by the state, or force them to attend non-coercive schools. There's also the opposite problem: parents who don't coerce their children but also generally shield them from the ill consequences of poor decisions. This introduces a moral hazard, like socialism/bailouts; the children don't learn personal responsibility, because they never have to face the consequences of their actions.

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

Autolykos — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:10:16 GMT

I would say it has a non-zero hope.

Personally, I think nearly everyone is born with a set of moral instincts that approximates the non-aggression principle. I also think that nearly everyone is born with an instinct to avoid contradictions (see the laws of thought). What happens in the modern day is that people are put into highly coercive environments when they're young. They are punished for not doing what they're told to do, and oftentimes they're even punished for merely questioning what they're told to do. Many parents behave this way as well. Anyways, such an upbringing seems to me to do the exact opposite of reinforcing a consistent belief in personal responsibility.

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

MadMiser — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:11:01 GMT

But if consistent belief in personal responsibility is necessary for people to embrace self-ownership, what hope does libertarianism/anarchy have, haha? It's not exactly something that can easily be taught, rather one of those things that has to be more learned than taught.

Re: Belief in objective morality a large impediment to anarchy?

Autolykos — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:46:37 GMT

Let me add that I think a corollary to the notion of self-ownership is consistent belief in personal responsibility.