Jump to content

Stefan's suggestion of a "moral revolution" of statism does not follow...


Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

 

Posted

 

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]

Posted

 

 

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.

 

Posted

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).

Posted

 

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.

Posted

 

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.

Posted

 

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

 

 

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.