TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Stefan's thesis seems to go like this... Humanity has 'disregarded' a number of 'immoral' institutitons and ideas, thus society is becoming more moral, therefore society will eventually 'disregard' statism. But, if the suggestion that society is becoming more 'moral' follows with the observation that we have disregarded a number of 'immoral' institutions and ideas, why is statism much more a problem today than it has ever been? I do not agree with Stefan that humanity is becoming more 'moral', but rather humanity is becoming more clever.
Jose Perez Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 But, if the suggestion that society is becoming more 'moral' follows with the observation that we have disregarded a number of 'immoral' institutions and ideas, why is statism much more a problem today than it has ever been? because it's the only one left to be disregarded? [snoopy]
TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 But, if the suggestion that society is becoming more 'moral' follows with the observation that we have disregarded a number of 'immoral' institutions and ideas, why is statism much more a problem today than it has ever been? because it's the only one left to be disregarded? But it doesn't follow with the analysis that the reason for disregarding all these other immoral institutions over time was because of the 'morality' of people getting better - if that argument were consistent, statism would not be such a problem today, but it is - more so than ever.
TheRobin Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 it's not people "getting better" it just means, that if people can no longer justify their actions to everyone else, they stop doing it because of social pressure.So far statism hasn't reached that stage where, if you say "I'm a statist" people look at you as if you just whipped slave to death and ostrazice you (however that's correctly spelled lol).
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Where do you get that statism is more of a problem today than it was in the past?
TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 Where do you get that statism is more of a problem today than it was in the past? States are bigger and more intrinsically 'coercive' than they've ever been, and Stefan agrees with this.
TronCat Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 it's not people "getting better" it just means, that if people can no longer justify their actions to everyone else, they stop doing it because of social pressure.So far statism hasn't reached that stage where, if you say "I'm a statist" people look at you as if you just whipped slave to death and ostrazice you (however that's correctly spelled lol). 'Social pressure' has always existed, and violence has been an important part of our evolution as a species. Stefan seems to be against violence qua violence, which smacks of intrinsicism. Violence is a morally neutral concept - it's only when we take into account of why it's being used and the circumstances involved does it become something to be praised or condemned.
STer Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Stefan seems to be against violence qua violence, which smacks of intrinsicism. Violence is a morally neutral concept - it's only when we take into account of why it's being used and the circumstances involved does it become something to be praised or condemned. I don't think that's accurate. Stefan is a proponent of the non-aggression principle. So he is against the initiation of force. I don't think he is against violence in necessary self-defense, for example.
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Actually, no they aren't. To be sure, the majority of nation states are becoming more intrusive and coercive than they were in the recent past but historically, states have been horribly intrusive, coercive and just generally violent.
godwin_anarchism Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 But it doesn't follow with the analysis that the reason for disregarding all these other immoral institutions over time was because of the 'morality' of people getting better - if that argument were consistent, statism would not be such a problem today, but it is - more so than ever. I've noticed this inconsistency too. I feel he credits those events (and their non reversal) to improved morality. However, I believe changes in technology and science play a much bigger role.
godwin_anarchism Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 Stefan seems to be against violence qua violence, which smacks of intrinsicism. Violence is a morally neutral concept - it's only when we take into account of why it's being used and the circumstances involved does it become something to be praised or condemned. I don't think that's accurate. Stefan is a proponent of the non-aggression principle. So he is against the initiation of force. I don't think he is against violence in necessary self-defense, for example. the 'self defense' technicality is easy to get around for instance, FDR defines the State as initiation of force, therefore violence against the State would be justified by FDR if I apply some rudimentary logic
Recommended Posts