Peter Joseph's Hidden Argument

[kirk paolinelli]

After listening to the debate last night, I was a little confused about PJ's viewpoint. After parsing through all the adjectives and thinking about the debate. The one take away I got was that he doesn't like the idea of Personal Responsibility. I'm wondering if anyone else had this same takeaway from the debate. He didn't want to blame his old employer for lying to him and trying not to pay him. Then he kept talking about "Structural Violence" and saying how many people it kills. I was interested in the "Structural" part. 

 

What he never addressed who was creating the structure. He would imply this is what the free market causes. But the free market can't cause anything, its not a verb it's an adjective, describing the absence of something. It is a name created to describe trade in the absence of coercion and fraud. Much like peace describes the absence of war. No one create peace they only can stop war.

 

"Structural Violence" must be setup and enforced by people not the market, but his point seems to be that the game theory of the market causes people to inflict structural violence. I think that's what he was saying, although it sounds a little different without all the extra words. When you restate this in simple terms it just sounds insane.

 

The game theory of Trade without the presence of coercion or fraud causes people to inflict structural violence on others.  Wouldn't this mean   Trade = Structural Violence

 

Obviously that makes no sense.

 

Also I don't understand how would he get rid of the market. Make sure coercion or fraud was part of every transaction?

 

Again it makes no sense.

 

What I believe to his real argument:

 

Structural Violence=determinism= individuals are not responsible for their actions

[Pepin]

Though I haven't watched the debate, I would say that I have made that sort of observation in regard to other similar groups like Marxists. It is like there are two separate things, the system and the people. It is a bit similar to the Hegelian idea of societal changes that rush in with a zeitgeist in that there is a large disconnect between the idea and people. I am having a difficult time describing it, but there is an odd sort of feeling associated to it. Perhaps an apt analogy would be as if the fates weaved in events and changes, but did not include any names or even that people were involved. I don't know.

 

I hope this post was relevant and made sense.

[Libertus]

He misunderstands scarcity. In day-to-day language, it means, "non-abundance". So everything that doesn't exist in super-abundance, is scarce. His argument is, that the fact that scarcity exists, combined with the natural incentives in the market system (which he doesn't seem to understand, neither in theory nor in practice - his own business for example) creates the structurally violent outcomes we call a "state".

 

Here's why this is all a bunch of nonsense.

 

In economics, scarcity simply means rivalrousness. A resource is rivalrous, when its usage by one person conflicts with usage by another person. It has nothing to do with the total amount of how much of a resource is available. In other words, even if I can have as much chicken wings as I would possibly want, chicken wings are super-abundant, the chicken on my plate, the one I'm eating right now, remains mine, not yours. The car I'm using to drive north can not at the same time be used by you to drive south.That means, you still need property rights even if goods are abundant, because you still need to be able to tell who gets to eat a specific chicken wing at a specific time, who the rightful owner is. Even if organs can be replicated for next to no money, the kidney I'm using right now, is mine. To deny the necessity of all property rights implies denial of ownership of the body.

 

In an economic sense of the word - there is no post-scarcity scenario. Except when people are fundamentally changed at their core - I think Peter would agree. I only disagree that it is possible to change human nature. Humans react to incentives. The end.

[Chris Laforest]

I have been "sparring" with TZM people on both youtube posts of this "debate" on and off since it's release; and more and more all I can think of is that this just aren't people we want to engage with. However, despite the fact that I initially thought Stefan could have been tougher with Peter; I realized that his strategy is far more wise than my knee-jerk. Though the Socratic method is very difficult for the user when it is the case (which I think we can all agree on many, many levels that it is) that they have a far greater understanding of complex concepts. This all comes back to the argument for political palatibility. Stefan may have been able to be more stern on obviously ridiculous practices of argumentation, or more accurately a direct rejection of the logic of argumentation. But I keep having to force myself to step back and see the big picture. Peter Joseph has a huge audience, and though he may have been so abused as to be completely incapable of accepting the very simple truths about reality, many of his listeners will see the huge difference in the way that both Stefan and Peter conducted themselves in this interaction. Not all, but certainly some of them will see it and seriously question Peter's behavior. Violence does breed violence, but there definitely is an innate human quality to be free and to be happy by discovering and conforming to the laws and facts of reality.The true self is bound to recognize another entity experiencing the value of conformity to the facts of reality. I think it's important to realize that, contrary to what I was thinking when I was watching the debate, had Stefan been more aggressive; the true self in all of Peter's audience would never have been aroused and, furthermore, the true self of Stefan's audience would have been similarly disrespected. 

Regarding the actual arguments of TZM, where do you begin? Well, I don't think you have to. I'm not 100% sure about this, so hopefully I can get some feedback about it; but doesn't it seem like a complete waste of time to go through all of the arguments of TZM, which are logically either inconsistent or completely contradictory and on so many levels? I want to think that I am wrong about that. Maybe it just has something to do with the fact that you can never know where the remnant lies, and very rarely will they ever come forward and identify themselves to you as such. But maybe, somewhere in all of those youtube and reddit arguments I've had with TZM people, someone was able to see the fundamental value of true logic in my arguments and actually change sides or at least begin on the road to changing sides. I guess it would be instructive to go through all of their arguments and refute them one by one. But since they were able to justify their conclusions by simply begging the question on such a fundamental level, what is to stop them from either completely rejecting the incontrovertible truth of our refutations, or just creating more to fill their place? 

[kirk paolinelli]

I agree with that he is confused about scarcity. Libertus brought up some great examples. Also does he believe there is a way to alleviate the scarcity of TIME. How would it apply to companionship? As far as Stefan's performance I thought he did great. They were on for an hour and 50mins. He was able to point out what is wrong, what causing it and  to lay out almost the entire, dare I say STRUCTURE, of the NAP, and that it starts at home. While PJ, wasn't able to make any sense whatsoever. I felt he was so afraid to make a falsifiable statement. That Stefan could hold him accountable to. That's why believe he was speaking so broadly and abstractly. He didn't like him looking up divorce stats. And the look PJ had when Stef asked if he cared about his employees or consumers of his videos. The walls were closing in.

 

So I've been thinking.

I've found a problem that dwarfs structural violence.

 

Cellular Violence: this violence has caused the death of every human being since they have existed.

[JohnH.]

I agree with that he is confused about scarcity. Libertus brought up some great examples. Also does he believe there is a way to alleviate the scarcity of TIME. How would it apply to companionship? As far as Stefan's performance I thought he did great. They were on for an hour and 50mins. He was able to point out what is wrong, what causing it and  to lay out almost the entire, dare I say STRUCTURE, of the NAP, and that it starts at home. While PJ, wasn't able to make any sense whatsoever. I felt he was so afraid to make a falsifiable statement. That Stefan could hold him accountable to. That's why believe he was speaking so broadly and abstractly. He didn't like him looking up divorce stats. And the look PJ had when Stef asked if he cared about his employees or consumers of his videos. The walls were closing in.

 

I found myself thinking the same thing.  There were a couple points–reasons for divorce and how the state was involved in his former employees business–that Stefan was able to call him out.  Of course, when Stefan did so he said the issues were completely irrelevant.  I don't know why he'd bring them up in the first place if they were irrelevant.

[Mike Fleming]

I thought Stef handled it mostly pretty well.  It wasn't perfect of course but then what is.

 

He approached the whole thing like he was interested and then asked questions.  He put forward good well-reasoned and well-articulated arguments.  It was almost the complete opposite of what PJ did.  I understand it could be frustrating for Stefan at some points but the objective never was to change PJ's mind.  The objective was to put well-reasoned arguments in front of the Zeitgeist followers.  You aren't going to convince all of them either but I bet it put a lot of doubt in some of their minds and there will be some number of them, that will gravitate away from TZM as a result.  Plus, the debate is there forever now for anyone to look at and examine.  

 

As for the argument, well, socialism is all about a lack of personal responsibility imo.  In this case they have had to concede that government can't look after them, so it's going to be the brilliant machines that will do it instead.

[MarkIX]

Upon reflection and participation in, now 3, threads on the subject, I have reached the conclusion that Stefan didn't do well at all. 

If you asked both PJ and Stef ; "Do you think that the reason we do not have a free society now is because certain individuals regard violence as a legitimate method of securing their desires?" I think the answer would be some version of "obviously yes"

If you asked the follow up question "Do you think that the Free market has an effective counter measure to these certain individuals?" I think the answer would be from both "obviously no". Why do I say that they would both answer no? Because both are proposing solutions to the current situation.

It is in these solutions that the divergence occurs Stefan's point could probably be summed up as "removing the legitimacy of violence  will result in a free society" whereas PJ's is probably "Maximising people's ability to achieve their desires without violence will result in a free society"

When the the differing sides of the "debate" are characterised like this it is easy to see that Stefan failed to address PJ's point, it is perhaps understandable as PJ didn't express it well. In this light Stefan's insistence that the State is the locus of most or all of the violence that PJ called Structural violence misses the point. If violence is seen as a legitimate means of securing your desires then the existence or non existence of the State is irrelevant, those with the power to do so will develop some framework to use violence in the "legitimate" pursuit of their desires, while those without power will accept this framework, because they too see violence as legitimate.

It seems that in this "debate" no body had any curiosity, which is a shame. It was obvious from his introduction that PJ is sick of being called a communist, when he doesn't see himself as one. It is just as obvious that Stef was "debating" with a "communist".There is not going to be a satisfying conclusion to such a setting.

[PatrickC]

To be fair Stef has always said that the state was an affect of the family. Which implies that violence has it's root causes in childhood. However, in this particular debate the discussion tended to hover exclusively around the state as the main perpetrator of violence for the sake of the debate they were both having.

 

Anyway, for the most part neither of us are ever likely to see either of these ideas come into fruition within our life time. Thus leaving me with the much bigger challenge of finding personal fullfilment and long term happiness within the current system. I think it's fair to say that the future will decide what works and what doesn't and so be it.

[Wesley]

This was not a structured debate. There were nothing like this:

 

1. First Affirmative Constructive (1AC)

a. Cross-examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative

2. First Negative Constructive (1NC)

a. Cross-examination of First Negative by First Affirmative

3. Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC)

a. Cross-examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative

4. Second Negative Constructive (2NC)

a. Cross-examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative

5. First Negative Rebuttal (1NR).

6. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)

7. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR)

8. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)

 

Instead, it was pretty much PJ ranting on, and then Stef trying to ask questions, being frustrated by non-arguments, and then PJ going back to an earlier point that had already be resolved. Then by the end, Stef tried to throw in something meaningful to a pretty bad debate.

 

Stef didn't really propose anything that I saw. It was just "what the hell is going on?" It is not exactly fair to say Stef did a bad job. PJ hardly put together any kind of argument that could be debated. Stef tried to argue what bits of arguments he could scrap up, but it is not meaningful at all.

 

If I was trying to debate with nonsense (slight exaggeration), its not like it would be possible for me to do an amazing job as nothing even makes sense. At some point I'll just throw in something meaningful and hope someone sees that- similar to what I think Stef did by the end.

[LovePrevails]

His argument can be boiled down to "yeah but you're not looking at the bigger picture., the competition of the market infects the state"

 

and "yeah but it doesn't matter about the factual evidence about how the state corrupts the market, it's srill the market that corrupts the state. you're still not looking at the bigger picture."

[MarkIX]

If your position is that violence in the family produces the violence of the State, I find is difficult to see how you could disagree with the concept of Structural violence. One is saying "Violence is legitimised by our childhood experiences" and the other is saying "Legitimised violence will lead to frameworks for effectively inflicting violence" in no way are they contrary, one is merely a logical extension of the other.

That Stef failed to notice this surprises me. As I regard him as abnormally insightful and I'm in seeming disagreement with him I participating in every thread on this subject I can find hoping someone can point out my errors. So far no one has either because I have failed to communicate my points effectively rendering effective rebuttal senseless or painful, or I am in fact correct about what I have said. Can you think of another possibilty?

His argument can be boiled down to "yeah but you're not looking at the bigger picture., the competition of the market infects the state"

 

and "yeah but it doesn't matter about the factual evidence about how the state corrupts the market, it's srill the market that corrupts the state. you're still not looking at the bigger picture."

Or it could be boiled down to "The legitimisation of violence is the problem the manifestation of violence in the form of the state is a side effect"

and " yeah but it doesn't matter about the factual evidence about how the state corrupts the market   any framework that uses legitimised violence as a reference would have the same effect"

It seems interesting to me that Stefan's solution entirely fails to address the State directly. In his proposed solution the State is not important enough to address directly, when he is "debating" PJ its existence is a used as a rebuttal to, it seemed to me, every point that PJ made.

[Mister Mister]

If violence is seen as a legitimate means of securing your desires then the existence or non existence of the State is irrelevant, those with the power to do so will develop some framework to use violence in the "legitimate" pursuit of their desires, while those without power will accept this framework, because they too see violence as legitimate.

  Sorry but I think that this is a tautology.  The State is defined as a monopoly on legitimized violence.  "some framework to use violence in the 'legitimate' pursuit of their desires, while those without power accept this framework" -- This IS the State by definition, in all its forms throughout history.  The Anarchist believes that "legitimized violence" doesn't exist, therefore the State is a myth.  Ending government doesn't mean blowing up the Capitol or imposing some system on people, it means ending this myth.I would rephrase your words, "If violence is seen as a legitimate means of securing desires, then their WILL be a State".  I think this has been realized by many in the past, but what Stef brings that is new is deep insight and a conversation into the roots of WHY violence is seen as legitimate.  PJ keeps saying that all the structural violence is the result of a gaming mentality which exists at the root of all capitalist philosophy like John Locke and Adam Smith, as if people are motivated by philosophical treatises from the 1700s.

[MarkIX]

  Sorry but I think that this is a tautology.  The State is defined as a monopoly on legitimized violence.  "some framework to use violence in the 'legitimate' pursuit of their desires, while those without power accept this framework" -- This IS the State by definition, in all its forms throughout history.  The Anarchist believes that "legitimized violence" doesn't exist, therefore the State is a myth.  Ending government doesn't mean blowing up the Capitol or imposing some system on people, it means ending this myth.I would rephrase your words, "If violence is seen as a legitimate means of securing desires, then their WILL be a State".  I think this has been realized by many in the past, but what Stef brings that is new is deep insight and a conversation into the roots of WHY violence is seen as legitimate.  PJ keeps saying that all the structural violence is the result of a gaming mentality which exists at the root of all capitalist philosophy like John Locke and Adam Smith, as if people are motivated by philosophical treatises from the 1700s.

You ignore the possibility of a situation without the monopoly of violence but still the legitimization of it. warlords being an example. But even your restatement doesn't change my position. Whether it is the only framework that is possible or merely part of a set the existence of the State is only "allowed" by the legitimisation of violence. The only difference I see between Stef and PJ is that Stef believes that violence can be de-legitimised universally, whereas PJ seems to believe that it cannot, this obviously explains the difference in their solutions.

I don't know about "gaming mentality" but the legitimisation of violence certainly extends into libertarian thought. How many libertarian or An-Caps would agree with the following statement "If a person trespasses on my homesteaded land I have the right to kill them" most will agree with this statement, with perhaps the justification that the response should be proportional. In this case a framework is established where violence is legitimised by the simple expenditure of labour. 

[weeb]

The video kept freezing (the audio was fine, as was the clock on youtube).  It was funny to see the facial expressions of both stef and peter during those moments.  Wow, the non-verbal effect of our emotions is difficult to mask, or separate their influence, from our presentation of an argument.  Frustration between the speakers was in the air.  Perhaps a whiteboard would help show logic flow and prevent having to go back over things.  He needs to bring his sources too.  I saw the usual trend toward changing definitions and failure of the conversation to follow a topic to a conclusion.  Frustrating to listen to, maybe a moderator or timer would alot the time and control the topic. 

[zg7666]

The basic problem Peter has is not non-initiation of force (voluntarism) it is property (private property in everyday language), which is in factually (not as adjective) Marxist view of world (mercantilism in its origin). It denies Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy), bodily integrity.

 

And scarcity is strictly defined term in economics: All means are scarce, i.e., limited with respect to the ends that they could possibly serve. If the means are in unlimited abundance, then they need not serve as the object of attention of any human action. For example, air in most situations is in unlimited abundance. It is therefore not a means and is not employed as a means to the fulfillment of ends. It need not be allocated, as time is, to the satisfaction of the more important ends, since it is sufficiently abundant for all human requirements. Air, then, though indispensable, is not a means, but a general condition of human action and human welfare.

Secondly, these scarce means must be allocated by the actor to serve certain ends and leave other ends unsatisfied. This act of choice may be called economizing the means to serve the most desired ends.  - http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap1a.asp#2._First_Implications_

So when austrians speak non scarcity, they use "garden of Eden" in thought experiment, a situation where "stuff" need not be allocated. They say something of this nature: food and would drink would materials in your mouth when you had need for it.

As a point for ZGM/TVP people, all mater is limited  (which is not of great importance because of law of marginal utility), but ultimately scarce are time and space (which is also noted in lectures of austrian school, when they talk about "garden of eden")

[Mister Mister]

You ignore the possibility of a situation without the monopoly of violence but still the legitimization of it. warlords being an example. But even your restatement doesn't change my position. Whether it is the only framework that is possible or merely part of a set the existence of the State is only "allowed" by the legitimisation of violence. The only difference I see between Stef and PJ is that Stef believes that violence can be de-legitimised universally, whereas PJ seems to believe that it cannot, this obviously explains the difference in their solutions.

I don't know about "gaming mentality" but the legitimisation of violence certainly extends into libertarian thought. How many libertarian or An-Caps would agree with the following statement "If a person trespasses on my homesteaded land I have the right to kill them" most will agree with this statement, with perhaps the justification that the response should be proportional. In this case a framework is established where violence is legitimised by the simple expenditure of labour. 

  Yes some libertarians might agree with that statement, but I certainly don't and I don't think most people here would.  I would never use the language "right to kill", I think self-defense can be justified.  My experience on both sides of this has usually been that the owner asks what the person is doing, informs them that the property is privately owned, then either asks them to leave or to respect certain rules, and the person happily complies.  If they do not, there may be reason to get angry or feel threatened.  But again, it seems to me you are assuming that people are motivated by abstract philosophy.  If someone indiscriminately kills trespassers, I should think there are deeper psychological reasons than that they read too much Adam Smith or Rothbard. Property rights are about the exclusive use of matter necessary to human life.  If I knock on a stranger's door and ask to use their phone because I locked my keys in my car, (this actually happened to me last night) they shouldn't feel threatened (in fact they were very nice) because I my standing on their front steps does not significantly affect their life, except for the 2 minutes of their time (which I of course apologized for).But the state of the world is not in disarray because people overzealously shoot trespassers.  It has a great deal to do with the cognitive dissonance involved in people making an exception to the moral standards which work in their personal life, for those who supposedly "run society".

[MarkIX]

  Yes some libertarians might agree with that statement, but I certainly don't and I don't think most people here would.  I would never use the language "right to kill", I think self-defense can be justified.  My experience on both sides of this has usually been that the owner asks what the person is doing, informs them that the property is privately owned, then either asks them to leave or to respect certain rules, and the person happily complies.  If they do not, there may be reason to get angry or feel threatened.  But again, it seems to me you are assuming that people are motivated by abstract philosophy.  If someone indiscriminately kills trespassers, I should think there are deeper psychological reasons than that they read too much Adam Smith or Rothbard. Property rights are about the exclusive use of matter necessary to human life.  If I knock on a stranger's door and ask to use their phone because I locked my keys in my car, (this actually happened to me last night) they shouldn't feel threatened (in fact they were very nice) because I my standing on their front steps does not significantly affect their life, except for the 2 minutes of their time (which I of course apologized for).But the state of the world is not in disarray because people overzealously shoot trespassers.  It has a great deal to do with the cognitive dissonance involved in people making an exception to the moral standards which work in their personal life, for those who supposedly "run society".

The point was that Legitimised violence is not solely within the framework of the state and is developed within those deeper psychological reasons you talk of.

As to the last part it's not cognitive dissonance it's extension of legitimate violence. It is acceptable for the person in charge to use violence because that is what anyone would do in the same circumstance. Why then is violence not used all the time? because violence is used to achieve desired results and certain results aren't achievable through violence and other results will run counter to the violent desires of people with superior capabilities in using violence. These two factors usually ensure an individual's personal life involves little use of violence even if their professional life involves lots of violence.

[Mister Mister]

The point was that Legitimised violence is not solely within the framework of the state and is developed within those deeper psychological reasons you talk of.

As to the last part it's not cognitive dissonance it's extension of legitimate violence. It is acceptable for the person in charge to use violence because that is what anyone would do in the same circumstance. Why then is violence not used all the time? because violence is used to achieve desired results and certain results aren't achievable through violence and other results will run counter to the violent desires of people with superior capabilities in using violence. These two factors usually ensure an individual's personal life involves little use of violence even if their professional life involves lots of violence.

  The cognitive dissonance I am referring to, is that people create an alternate moral category for the State.  They accept that theft and kidnapping are wrong, but believe that governments must tax and arrest for the good of society.  Often people will say that government is necessary because "there are dangerous people"  or  "most people can't make the right decisions", seemingly oblivious of the fact that police and politicians are people who can also be described this way.  So my point was that, allowing for an exception to moral rules for certain people, based on an arbitrary label called government, necessarily leads to corruption, exploitation, violence, etc.  I think this is a more significant problem than landowners shooting trespassers.

  So if I understand what you are saying, is that there are other forms of falsely legitimized violence other than the State.  I would agree -- people who think it's okay to spank or yell at or circumcize their kids, smack their wife around, or beat up homosexuals are some examples that come to mind.  But you also think that property rights creates violence?  Please elaborate.  I am interested in this line of thinking and I don't think that PJ did a very good job of explaining it.  One thing that comes to mind, is a time when I lived in India volunteering as a teacher.  I noticed that other foreigners and myself who were only visiting could afford guest-houses where running water and hot water was readily available, but people who actually lived in the town often did not have these things.  In some of the apartments, water would only run certain hours of the day, when everyone would rush to fill up large plastic tubs which they would then use to bathe and cook with. Now, it may seem like there was only so much water to go around, and the more wealthy could afford more of it, so their wealth could be perceived as taking water from the poor.  But I'm not sure this is the case.  Actually this region of India receives more rainfall than almost anywhere in the world, and is permeated with rivers carrying beautiful fresh water from the rivers.  So it is really a question of lack of infrastructure, as is so often the case with money.  The problem could be solved with a relatively small amount of capital and human effort, compared with the effort involved in selling stuff to tourists, internet cafes on every block, building and maintaining temples, and so on.  So I always wondered why wasn't more energy invested in getting clean water to everyone?  Is this the kind of violence you are talking about?  I am curious to hear yours and others' thoughts about what could be the cause and solution of something like this.

[Ray H.]

It is in these solutions that the divergence occurs Stefan's point could probably be summed up as "removing the legitimacy of violence  will result in a free society" whereas PJ's is probably "Maximising people's ability to achieve their desires without violence will result in a free society"

When the the differing sides of the "debate" are characterised like this it is easy to see that Stefan failed to address PJ's point, it is perhaps understandable as PJ didn't express it well. In this light Stefan's insistence that the State is the locus of most or all of the violence that PJ called Structural violence misses the point. If violence is seen as a legitimate means of securing your desires then the existence or non existence of the State is irrelevant, those with the power to do so will develop some framework to use violence in the "legitimate" pursuit of their desires, while those without power will accept this framework, because they too see violence as legitimate.

 

You keep reframing the arguments with no reference to the market. Since one of Peter's clearest assertions (if not his only one) was that the free market is the cause of structural violence, and Stefan rebutted that claim, with nothing but a curt dismissal of irrelevance by Peter, I'm not sure how you can claim Stefan "failed to address PJ's point".

 

Let's be clear. Peter blamed the free market explicitly for the ills of society. He believes the state sprang from the market, but offered no evidence or theory to back that up other than some vague game theory references. Let's say he's right, though. His solution is to get rid of the market. This is akin to an optometrist saying, "You're near-sighted. We'll have to take your eyes out." A real solution wouldn't come at the expense of the entire system, but address the flaw directly. Peter's apparent position is that this cannot be done; violence cannot be addressed separately from the market.

 

Also, let's say his resource allocation system is successful in eliminating the market. Then what? Does he claim that game theory has been eliminated as well? If gaming the market caused the state, what will result from the gaming of this new system? Does he believe that his system results in humans being nice to one another for the rest of time?

 

By the way, "structural violence" is not a well-developed concept. It's been around 40-some years. It is distinct from direct, physical violence, and boils down to a renaming of "social injustice". Basically, if you don't like some aspect of society, and it manifests in some kind of harm, it can be lumped under the umbrella of structural violence. Rap music makes me want to punch myself in the face, therefore rap music is structural violence. It's subjectivity takes away much of its usefulness.

[MarkIX]

  The cognitive dissonance I am referring to, is that people create an alternate moral category for the State.  They accept that theft and kidnapping are wrong, but believe that governments must tax and arrest for the good of society.  Often people will say that government is necessary because "there are dangerous people"  or  "most people can't make the right decisions", seemingly oblivious of the fact that police and politicians are people who can also be described this way.  So my point was that, allowing for an exception to moral rules for certain people, based on an arbitrary label called government, necessarily leads to corruption, exploitation, violence, etc.  I think this is a more significant problem than landowners shooting trespassers.

  So if I understand what you are saying, is that there are other forms of falsely legitimized violence other than the State.  I would agree -- people who think it's okay to spank or yell at or circumcize their kids, smack their wife around, or beat up homosexuals are some examples that come to mind.  But you also think that property rights creates violence?  Please elaborate.  I am interested in this line of thinking and I don't think that PJ did a very good job of explaining it.  One thing that comes to mind, is a time when I lived in India volunteering as a teacher.  I noticed that other foreigners and myself who were only visiting could afford guest-houses where running water and hot water was readily available, but people who actually lived in the town often did not have these things.  In some of the apartments, water would only run certain hours of the day, when everyone would rush to fill up large plastic tubs which they would then use to bathe and cook with. Now, it may seem like there was only so much water to go around, and the more wealthy could afford more of it, so their wealth could be perceived as taking water from the poor.  But I'm not sure this is the case.  Actually this region of India receives more rainfall than almost anywhere in the world, and is permeated with rivers carrying beautiful fresh water from the rivers.  So it is really a question of lack of infrastructure, as is so often the case with money.  The problem could be solved with a relatively small amount of capital and human effort, compared with the effort involved in selling stuff to tourists, internet cafes on every block, building and maintaining temples, and so on.  So I always wondered why wasn't more energy invested in getting clean water to everyone?  Is this the kind of violence you are talking about?  I am curious to hear yours and others' thoughts about what could be the cause and solution of something like this.

Sorry if I'm not being entirely clear in making my points they are reasonably new to me.

Would you say say that you accept the legitimacy of violence if used in self defence? If that is the case, How would you respond to somebody who described your willingness to use violence in certain circumstances and not others as an example of cognitive dissonance? 

Would it be fair to say that at least some frameworks of ownership are flawed and therefore cannot result in legitimate violence?

Would you describe the killing of trespassers as the legitimate use of violence if the trespassers were obviously unaware of the ownership claims?

How about if they merely didn't accept the ownership claims? 

What would be the way to establish the truth of said ownership claims?

Sorry if I seem to be asking too many questions but I have had discussions before where it is obvious I have not understood the other persons position which resulted in each talking past the other.

I think your Indian example would be construed as "structural violence" by  Peter Joseph. Structural violence is a term I was introduced by this debate but it makes a lot of sense to me. The obvious example of structural violence is of course the State, being as it is  a structure of violence but if you accept that the State is only possible due to certain majority held attitudes regarding violence then it is not a big stretch to say that these attitudes will manifest in other ways within a culture. In fact I don't believe I would be wrong if I stated "It is Stefan's position that the structural violence within the family is responsible for the State".

I feel the need to say something about my relationship with TVP. Truth is I don't have one, my only exposure to Peter Joseph before this debate was the first couple of minutes of a rebuttal he did to one of Stefan's videos. I din't watch it all because the first few minute were not compelling. What surprised me about this "debate" was that two people who agreed on so much could then spend so much time arguing about it. The thing about voluntarism especially baffled me, PJ was talking about things as they are now, where it is apparent that voluntarism isn't enough to overcome the problem of structural violence, a problemof which the State is just a part.While Stefan was talking about the way things will be after the peaceful parenting "revolution", admitting that things have to change before voluntarism can be the prime factor in social relationships. It seemed to me that Stefan was arguing against a "communist" that unfortunately wasn't Peter Joseph.

You keep reframing the arguments with no reference to the market. Since one of Peter's clearest assertions (if not his only one) was that the free market is the cause of structural violence, and Stefan rebutted that claim, with nothing but a curt dismissal of irrelevance by Peter, I'm not sure how you can claim Stefan "failed to address PJ's point".

 

Let's be clear. Peter blamed the free market explicitly for the ills of society. He believes the state sprang from the market, but offered no evidence or theory to back that up other than some vague gaming theory references. Let's say he's right, though. His solution is to get rid of the market. This is akin to an optometrist saying, "You're near-sighted. We'll have to take your eyes out." A real solution wouldn't come at the expense of the entire system, but address the flaw directly. Peter's apparent position is that this cannot be done; violence cannot be addressed separately from the market.

 

Also, let's say his resource allocation system is successful in eliminating the market. Then what? Does he claim that gaming theory has been eliminated as well? If gaming the market caused the state, what will result from the gaming of this new system? Does he believe that his system results in humans being nice to one another for the rest of time?

 

By the way, "structural violence" is not a well-developed concept. It's been around 40-some years. It is distinct from direct, physical violence, and boils down to a renaming of "social injustice". Basically, if you don't like some aspect of society, and it manifests in some kind of harm, it can be lumped under the umbrella of structural violence. Rap music makes me want to punch myself in the face, therefore rap music is structural violence. It's subjectivity takes away much of its usefulness.

Due to the nature of the free market it cannot be free of the ills of society, the free market can only be as free from violence as the society of the people who participate in it. If violence is legitimised then you will get violent frameworks like the state that reflect the actions of the people involved in the market. Isn't that Stef's whole point, when he says that the State is a reflection of the family?

I'm not wedded to PJ's solution but I think your eye analogy is flawed a more proper one would be that PJ's solution is either for strong corrective lenses or to bring everything into your near field vision, depending on how extreme you take his position to be. Stef's position could be described as Lasik surgery.

Thank you for the information on the history of "structural violence". I'm practically brand new to the term but by my understanding it has better descriptive power than "social justice" and even the State in regards to the problems facing a free society.

[Formelyknown]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4_u7veGPA0

[Ray H.]

 

Due to the nature of the free market it cannot be free of the ills of society, the free market can only be as free from violence as the society of the people who participate in it. If violence is legitimised then you will get violent frameworks like the state that reflect the actions of the people involved in the market. Isn't that Stef's whole point, when he says that the State is a reflection of the family?

I'm not wedded to PJ's solution but I think your eye analogy is flawed a more proper one would be that PJ's solution is either for strong corrective lenses or to bring everything into your near field vision, depending on how extreme you take his position to be. Stef's position could be described as Lasik surgery.

Thank you for the information on the history of "structural violence". I'm practically brand new to the term but by my understanding it has better descriptive power than "social justice" and even the State in regards to the problems facing a free society.

 

No, Peter sees violence inherent in the free market, and no way to address it other than eliminating the entire system. This is the doctor seeing the flaw in your vision and seeing no way to address it other than removing your eyes. Peter sees no value in the market at its root. Pricing, competition, trade, the whole enchilada are in no way salvageable. There is no corrective lens, no bringing things closer to your eyeballs. They don't work, inherently. They must be removed and replaced with robotic eyes that he promises will work perfectly.

 

And what the heck is "better descriptive power"?

 

 

 In fact I don't believe I would be wrong if I stated "It is Stefan's position that the structural violence within the family is responsible for the State".

 

The adjective "structural" is unnecessary to make that point. Simply saying "violence" would be sufficient. Stefan, I believe, holds individuals responsible for their behavior towards their children. If children are treated well, society will be less violent. He believes that any human being can take action to foster a less violent world. Peter, on the other hand, believes that societal behavior (sexism, racism, classism, etc.) is determined by inherent characteristics (competition, game theory, forced scarcity) of whatever social structure they happen to live under (the free market). Further, his solution (mechanized resource allocation) isn't possible for just any individual to work towards. It, ironically, requires knowledge and resources to which not every human has access. So your choices are A.) don't abuse your children, so that they will be peaceful to others, or B.) wait for the development of a system that will provide for your needs, so that you will behave peacefully due to that systems inherent qualities of abundance, fairness, and equality.

[David Ottinger]

Due to the nature of the free market it cannot be free of the ills of society, the free market can only be as free from violence as the society of the people who participate in it. If violence is legitimised then you will get violent frameworks like the state that reflect the actions of the people involved in the market. Isn't that Stef's whole point, when he says that the State is a reflection of the family?

 

This is partially correct.  In order for a market system to be a free market system, then adherence to the NAP is a necessary element.  Otherwise, it shifts from capitalism to imperialism, or even feudalism -- which usually has the powers of conquest consolidated into some sort of statist model.  e.g. monarchy or oligarchy.  

 

Whether Peter realizes it or not, he's advocating for a technocratic form of totalitarianism. 

[MarkIX]

No, Peter sees violence inherent in the free market, and no way to address it other than eliminating the entire system. This is the doctor seeing the flaw in your vision and seeing no way to address it other than removing your eyes. Peter sees no value in the market at its root. Pricing, competition, trade, the whole enchilada are in no way salvageable. There is no corrective lens, no bringing things closer to your eyeballs. They don't work, inherently. They must be removed and replaced with robotic eyes that he promises will work perfectly.

 

And what the heck is "better descriptive power"?

 

 

 

The adjective "structural" is unnecessary to make that point. Simply saying "violence" would be sufficient. Stefan, I believe, holds individuals responsible for their behavior towards their children. If children are treated well, society will be less violent. He believes that any human being can take action to foster a less violent world. Peter, on the other hand, believes that societal behavior (sexism, racism, classism, etc.) is determined by inherent characteristics (competition, game theory, forced scarcity) of whatever social structure they happen to live under (the free market). Further, his solution (mechanized resource allocation) isn't possible for just any individual to work towards. It, ironically, requires knowledge and resources to which not every human has access. So your choices are A.) don't abuse your children, so that they will be peaceful to others, or B.) wait for the development of a system that will provide for your needs, so that you will behave peacefully due to that systems inherent qualities of abundance, fairness, and equality.

"Structural violence" has better descriptive power than "The State". The State isn't the problem, if tomorrow you  "disappeared" everyone in a position of power within the structures of all states, you wouldn't get to lunch time before before the vast majority of people would be planning on putting some kind of State back. The problem is not that the State exist the problem is that the vast majority of individuals accept the legitimacy of violence. Whilst that acceptance exists there can be no authority without violence, in other words Violence is inherent in the structure of society and therefore all of societies products. Hence the descriptive phrase "Structural Violence".

 

Structural as opposed to random. Parents are not randomly hitting their children with hammers, they are using violence for punishment and "discipline", in a structured way to produce supposedly beneficial outcomes. If it was not used in this way within the family, I can't see it would be tolerated from politicians.

 

This is partially correct.  In order for a market system to be a free market system, then adherence to the NAP is a necessary element.  Otherwise, it shifts from capitalism to imperialism, or even feudalism -- which usually has the powers of conquest consolidated into some sort of statist model.  e.g. monarchy or oligarchy.  

 

Whether Peter realizes it or not, he's advocating for a technocratic form of totalitarianism. 

That's a point many seem to be missing. When Stefan talks about a free market he's talking APP (After Peaceful Parenting), What PJ is talking about is the market as it stands right now.

[Edit] for minor typos

[Ray H.]

The State isn't the problem, if tomorrow you  "disappeared" everyone in a position of power within the structures of all states, you wouldn't get to lunch time before before the vast majority of people would be planning on putting some kind of State back. The problem is not that the State exist the problem is that the vast majority of individuals accept the legitimacy of violence. Whilst that acceptance exists there can be no authority without violence

 

So your conclusion is violence is bad. No one disagrees. The goal is no violence. You've stated several times that most people accept the legitimacy of violence. So why do they accept it? Is it their upbringing? Is it the market? This is where the disagreement is. Stef argues the State (the monopoly of violence) is a result of humans being abused and neglected as children. Peter argues human suffering (structural violence) is a result of inherent characteristics of the market of which one manifestation is the State. They agree that there is violence and that it is bad. They don't agree on the source or the solution as I pointed out in the unaddressed parts of my previous post.

 

Regarding structural violence, you've stated that you were unfamiliar with the concept earlier in this thread. Based on your different uses of the term to suit your line of reasoning, it would seem you haven't made an effort to become familiar with the term to this point in the thread. I, likewise, was unfamiliar with the concept before watching the debate. The first thing I did after watching was to google the term and read several articles about it. It's important to be precise about language in these kinds of discussions. I have been. I fear you have not.

[David Ottinger]

That's a point many seem to be missing. When Stefan talks about a free market he's talking APP (After Peaceful Parenting), What PJ is talking about is the market as it stands right now.

 

 

Well, all the voluntaryist are implying that the NAP is a requisite for a free market to exist.  How else does one have voluntary trade, let alone a market?  There are no markets without cooperation.  Stefan goes as far as to say how we get there.  And I agree with Stefan's premise that society is a reflection of child rearing practices. 

 

But Peter believes that government is the product of market forces.  This is unture.  The state does not emerge out of the market.  The state emerges out of adherence to the principles of conquest.  Eventually, the state seizes the flow of the market. 

 

I'll say it again:  People coming together to form an allegiance for the purpose of imposing jurisdicitonal controls is not a market phenomenon.  It is a product of conquest, not trade (i.e. voluntary interaction).

[MarkIX]

So your conclusion is violence is bad. No one disagrees. The goal is no violence. You've stated several times that most people accept the legitimacy of violence. So why do they accept it? Is it their upbringing? Is it the market? This is where the disagreement is. Stef argues the State (the monopoly of violence) is a result of humans being abused and neglected as children. Peter argues human suffering (structural violence) is a result of inherent characteristics of the market of which one manifestation is the State. They agree that there is violence and that it is bad. They don't agree on the source or the solution as I pointed out in the unaddressed parts of my previous post.

 

Regarding structural violence, you've stated that you were unfamiliar with the concept earlier in this thread. Based on your different uses of the term to suit your line of reasoning, it would seem you haven't made an effort to become familiar with the term to this point in the thread. I, likewise, was unfamiliar with the concept before watching the debate. The first thing I did after watching was to google the term and read several articles about it. It's important to be precise about language in these kinds of discussions. I have been. I fear you have not.

So you are saying that Stefan's position is that violence within the family is a cause of violence by the state?

And you don't see that as the same as saying That the  Structural violence of the family obviously effects the function of the market which gives rise to the state?

Do you feel you are in a position of greater knowledge than me is regards to the term "structural violence" could you point out exactly how you feel I am using it incorrectly?

 

Well, all the voluntaryist are implying that the NAP is a requisite for a free market to exist.  How else does one have voluntary trade, let alone a market?  There are no markets without cooperation.  Stefan goes as far as to say how we get there.  And I agree with Stefan's premise that society is a reflection of child rearing practices. 

 

But Peter believes that government is the product of market forces.  This is unture.  The state does not emerge out of the market.  The state emerges out of adherence to the principles of conquest.  Eventually, the state seizes the flow of the market. 

 

I'll say it again:  People coming together to form an allegiance for the purpose of imposing jurisdicitonal controls is not a market phenomenon.  It is a product of conquest, not trade (i.e. voluntary interaction).

The government is either the product of market forces or the market is subject to the same forces that produce the State, both are valid positions with regards to PJ's argument. Both are valid positions with regards to Stefan's argument as well, After all given the evidence we have, you can only come to one of two conclusions either the State is a product of market forces or market forces are insufficient to deal with the formation or existence of the State. Either way the market needs to be changed, either by changing the acceptance of the violence inherent in the social structures that produce it or to change the market in some way to overcome the State. 

[Mister Mister]

Sorry if I'm not being entirely clear in making my points they are reasonably new to me.

Would you say say that you accept the legitimacy of violence if used in self defence? If that is the case, How would you respond to somebody who described your willingness to use violence in certain circumstances and not others as an example of cognitive dissonance? 

  Because the few times in life where I claim violence is justified, is based on a principle, one which I would consistently apply to everyone.  Government violence is not justified based on a consistent principle.  Even though abstract principles are sometimes invoked to justify it, they are reserved for the people who win elections or wear uniforms.  The same behavior - legislation, arrest, imprisonment, taxation, deficit finance, central banking, etc, WITHOUT the imaginary label of government would be seen in a different moral light.  For example someone who stood up to a mafia protection racket would be seen differently from someone who resisted the income tax.  Does that make sense? 

"Would it be fair to say that at least some frameworks of ownership are flawed and therefore cannot result in legitimate violence?"  Of course.  Some examples are slavery, claims of ownership over wives or children, abusing workers, taxation, national debt, intellectualy property, and national borders.  Can you describe to me an example that voluntarism excludes? 

"Would you describe the killing of trespassers as the legitimate use of violence if the trespassers were obviously unaware of the ownership claims?

How about if they merely didn't accept the ownership claims?"   Sorry but I don't see this as such a big issue.  Like I said, violence against trespassers doesn't seem to be a huge problem in the world.  Self-defense and defense of property and the degree of force which is justified is difficult to just make blanket statements about, every case is different, and case-law or common-law can deal with this.  If a woman is cornered in an alley, by a man saying she looks sexy, and she shoots and kills him, it seems legitimate.  If you wake up and someone is in your house, most people would accept if you assume they might kill you.  If you live in a cabin in the woods and some people are camping on your property, probably shooting them would be looked on as extreme.  Recently in Newfoundland someone was shot while caught stealing from a fisherman's nets.  Again, its hard to say if this is justified - certainly some fish are not worth a man's life, but if someone is stealing from you, and you simply call them out, they might shoot you, you really don't know.  We would rather prevent these conflicts than have to deal with these extreme cases, however, which really ought to be the function of property rights and morality in general, to prevent disputes.

 "What would be the way to establish the truth of said ownership claims?"  Again, common law has dealt with most of these problems, and smart people may come up with better innovations.  But what is really important is not the legitimacy of a claim on property, but rather disputes over property.  In other words, it is not a question of when does someone have a legitimate claim of property for themselves, but when does one have a legitimate claim AGAINST another person?  As I see it, this is the best way to address environmental destruction.  Rather than passing new laws, you would hold someone liable for actions which affect your life and your property.One more point - government can be seen as an indefensible claim of property.  they claim a kind of ownership over all the land they define arbitrarily as a country or state or county or city, the borders of which are negotiated with neighboring governments, and a kind of ownership over all the people within that land, dictating what a person can and can't put in their body, how they should freely interact with each other, and how much of their income they can keep.  enforcement of government borders is way more excessive and unreasonable than most action taken against trespassers - you can only bring in or out certain goods with their permission, if you were not born within that farm, then you can only live, work, or study with their permission, and those here without permission are effectively second-class citizens.  So I agree that it is possible to make unreasonable claims of property or excessive enforcement of those claims, but by far government is the worst example of this.I hope that answers some questions, I appreciate the two-way dialogue which unfortunately didn't really get going between Stef and Peter.

[MarkIX]

  Because the few times in life where I claim violence is justified, is based on a principle, one which I would consistently apply to everyone.  Government violence is not justified based on a consistent principle.  Even though abstract principles are sometimes invoked to justify it, they are reserved for the people who win elections or wear uniforms.  The same behavior - legislation, arrest, imprisonment, taxation, deficit finance, central banking, etc, WITHOUT the imaginary label of government would be seen in a different moral light.  For example someone who stood up to a mafia protection racket would be seen differently from someone who resisted the income tax.  Does that make sense? 

"Would it be fair to say that at least some frameworks of ownership are flawed and therefore cannot result in legitimate violence?"  Of course.  Some examples are slavery, claims of ownership over wives or children, abusing workers, taxation, national debt, intellectualy property, and national borders.  Can you describe to me an example that voluntarism excludes? 

"Would you describe the killing of trespassers as the legitimate use of violence if the trespassers were obviously unaware of the ownership claims?

How about if they merely didn't accept the ownership claims?"   Sorry but I don't see this as such a big issue.  Like I said, violence against trespassers doesn't seem to be a huge problem in the world.  Self-defense and defense of property and the degree of force which is justified is difficult to just make blanket statements about, every case is different, and case-law or common-law can deal with this.  If a woman is cornered in an alley, by a man saying she looks sexy, and she shoots and kills him, it seems legitimate.  If you wake up and someone is in your house, most people would accept if you assume they might kill you.  If you live in a cabin in the woods and some people are camping on your property, probably shooting them would be looked on as extreme.  Recently in Newfoundland someone was shot while caught stealing from a fisherman's nets.  Again, its hard to say if this is justified - certainly some fish are not worth a man's life, but if someone is stealing from you, and you simply call them out, they might shoot you, you really don't know.  We would rather prevent these conflicts than have to deal with these extreme cases, however, which really ought to be the function of property rights and morality in general, to prevent disputes.

 "What would be the way to establish the truth of said ownership claims?"  Again, common law has dealt with most of these problems, and smart people may come up with better innovations.  But what is really important is not the legitimacy of a claim on property, but rather disputes over property.  In other words, it is not a question of when does someone have a legitimate claim of property for themselves, but when does one have a legitimate claim AGAINST another person?  As I see it, this is the best way to address environmental destruction.  Rather than passing new laws, you would hold someone liable for actions which affect your life and your property.One more point - government can be seen as an indefensible claim of property.  they claim a kind of ownership over all the land they define arbitrarily as a country or state or county or city, the borders of which are negotiated with neighboring governments, and a kind of ownership over all the people within that land, dictating what a person can and can't put in their body, how they should freely interact with each other, and how much of their income they can keep.  enforcement of government borders is way more excessive and unreasonable than most action taken against trespassers - you can only bring in or out certain goods with their permission, if you were not born within that farm, then you can only live, work, or study with their permission, and those here without permission are effectively second-class citizens.  So I agree that it is possible to make unreasonable claims of property or excessive enforcement of those claims, but by far government is the worst example of this.I hope that answers some questions, I appreciate the two-way dialogue which unfortunately didn't really get going between Stef and Peter.

You claim principles, the statist claims principles. Your principles are contingent on what classifies as self defence their principles are contingent as to what they classify a free rider to be. 

I'm confused by "Can you describe to me an example that voluntarism excludes?" can you help me out.

 

The questions about ownership claims is trying to find out what you feel legitimises violence. It's a fairly well held opinion in libertarian circles that homesteading grants perpetual and exclusive rights. So the question isn't about what happens today. At least half of this conversation is about "tomorrow". All your examples of self defence or claimed self defence are subjective. Why is it OK to defend your property from threat one way and not another, how is it that someone's right to self defence can be limited. You say that shooting campers is extreme, but either they are violating the owner's property and the owner get to decide the level of self defence of they aren't and no self defence is required. Yes I've heard the "You're a Dick" argument but that's aesthetics. If YAD applies in this instance then the "right" to self defence is moderated by the personal preference of others. Doesn't seem much of a principle if that is the case.

 

Could all the things that a government does be done by the "legitimate" owner of land, Or are there other reasons that make these action illegitimate?

[David Ottinger]

The government is either the product of market forces or the market is subject to the same forces that produce the State, both are valid positions with regards to PJ's argument. Both are valid positions with regards to Stefan's argument as well, After all given the evidence we have, you can only come to one of two conclusions either the State is a product of market forces or market forces are insufficient to deal with the formation or existence of the State. Either way the market needs to be changed, either by changing the acceptance of the violence inherent in the social structures that produce it or to change the market in some way to overcome the State. 

 

"The government is either the product of market forces..."   I don't see how this is true in any instance.

 

"or the market is subject to the same forces that produce the State."  This does happen.  But being subjected to the force of others does not mean that this despotic force is the creator of trade. 

 

So, to hold that these are the only possiblities would be a false dichotomy.  The market is an independent phenomenon of the state.  As I stated before, a select group of people under the proxy of government seize control over the market.  And, I'm not using the word "seize" for dramatic effect here.  It is an act of economical conquest. 

 

I don't know if you're familiar with the 3 types of conquest, which are the stages of conquest, but they are:

 

(1) Physical Conquest -- the occupation of a geographic region;

(2) Economic Conquest -- the seizure of trade, i.e. flow of wealth, or the production of the masses; and,

(3) Epistemological Conquest -- the indoctrination of the populace.

 

All 3 are necessary for a region to be conquered.  Governments are a tool, or an institution, of war.  They are not a tool of trade.  Governments always move towards seizing the production of the masses in order to centralize it for the purpose of war. 

 

However, because of great thinkers, as well as the advancement of tools of war, it is becoming more-and-more apparent that this form of governance is leading towards mutual assured destruction, so it is slowly being realized that there are ways for humanity to live in harmony with one another instead of scheming ways to lord over everyone.  And in order to achieve that, we need to work those stages of conquest backwards.  A free market is part of that -- which we currently DO NOT have.  

 

But, there are many people who benefit from this centralization of what are essentially sovereign powers.  To claim that this de facto market system you see today is the product of a voluntary society is grossly inaccurate.   There is NO reason for anyone to "trade" over his/her sovereign powers for a benefit.  That is not an act of trade!  That is an act of surrender!  But, most people do not know what it means to be a sui juris, i.e. a man of his own law. 

 

People are indoctrinaed into believing that there are supposed to be poeple of authority, i.e. rulers.  So, no!  What you see today is not a voluntary society.  The market you see today is an artificial economy, not an organic one  (if you permit such terms to make the distinction).

 

Now, I will agree that this threat of conquest will always exist, but that risk is inherent to any and all economic systems because we can choose whether we, as an individual, participates in conquest over others (i.e. adhere to the principles of conquest) or engage in mutual beneficial relationships where the non-aggression principle is upheld as well as the principle of equal consideration -- these are principles of cooperation (or peace).  

 

 

[STer]

You ignore the possibility of a situation without the monopoly of violence but still the legitimization of it. warlords being an example. But even your restatement doesn't change my position. Whether it is the only framework that is possible or merely part of a set the existence of the State is only "allowed" by the legitimisation of violence. The only difference I see between Stef and PJ is that Stef believes that violence can be de-legitimised universally, whereas PJ seems to believe that it cannot, this obviously explains the difference in their solutions.

I don't know about "gaming mentality" but the legitimisation of violence certainly extends into libertarian thought. How many libertarian or An-Caps would agree with the following statement "If a person trespasses on my homesteaded land I have the right to kill them" most will agree with this statement, with perhaps the justification that the response should be proportional. In this case a framework is established where violence is legitimised by the simple expenditure of labour. 

MarkIX,

 

What do you think of the chicken/egg issue I raised here?

 

I think we may be pointing out something similar and, if so, I'd love to see Stefan and PJ discuss that point more openly in another talk.

 

Actually the more I think about this, the more it seems like a "first mover" kind of issue. I think Peter is trying - poorly, in my view - to point out that we have to go back to where the state came from. If Stefan says the state emerges from poor parenting, then where did the poor parenting come from? If it's in human nature to be voluntary and peaceful, why did parents start abusing their children, thus setting them up psychologically to support the emergence of states? Stefan never gets to the root cause. Peter is trying to get to the root cause underneath all this. I'm not sure if he succeeds, but it's something we really do need to consider.

[Ray H.]

So you are saying that Stefan's position is that violence within the family is a cause of violence by the state?

And you don't see that as the same as saying That the  Structural violence of the family obviously effects the function of the market which gives rise to the state?

Do you feel you are in a position of greater knowledge than me is regards to the term "structural violence" could you point out exactly how you feel I am using it incorrectly?

 

Neither Stefan nor Peter make the argument you are: family violence leads to market violence leads to state violence. This is the last time I'll sum this up. Peter tried to argue that structural violence includes the events that take place in, and must take place in, the market system due to its inherent characteristics, such as competition. These events, such as lay-offs in the name of cost-cutting, lead to some humans not being able to acquire their basic needs. This, in turn, causes stress and psychosis which lead to behavioral violence, such as spousal abuse. So Peter says the market causes both state violence and family violence. Stefan argued that the market is voluntary and peaceful when not corrupted by the State which is an outgrowth of child abuse in its various forms. So Stefan says the mistreatment of children leads to an acceptance of the State which taints the market.

 

In addition to putting the cart before the horse, you also attribute structural violence to the famliy, because (from one of your previous posts) you think it is a distinction from random violence. Where did you get that idea? What is random violence? Outside of TV and film, is there any violent act that is truly random? There might be random victims, but the violence itself is not without cause. But even if there were random violence, structural violence would not be its opposite. Structural violence is meant to denote the human suffering caused by social structures. This suffering is largely indirect and unavoidable while the structure exists. The structure Peter harps on is the market. Others might harp on patriarchy, while others on communism. They all claim that the institution they are opposed to is, at its root, violent. When you talk about the "structural violence of the family", you are essentially claiming that the structure we call "family" is, at its root, violent. Please, tell me this is not what you meant. A family can clearly exist without violence.

[STer]

Stefan argued that the market is voluntary and peaceful when not corrupted by the State which is an outgrowth of child abuse in its various forms. So Stefan says the mistreatment of children leads to an acceptance of the State which taints the market.

But what is child abuse and mistreatment of children an outgrowth of?

[Mister Mister]

You claim principles, the statist claims principles. Your principles are contingent on what classifies as self defence their principles are contingent as to what they classify a free rider to be. 

I'm confused by "Can you describe to me an example that voluntarism excludes?" can you help me out.

 

The questions about ownership claims is trying to find out what you feel legitimises violence. It's a fairly well held opinion in libertarian circles that homesteading grants perpetual and exclusive rights. So the question isn't about what happens today. At least half of this conversation is about "tomorrow". All your examples of self defence or claimed self defence are subjective. Why is it OK to defend your property from threat one way and not another, how is it that someone's right to self defence can be limited. You say that shooting campers is extreme, but either they are violating the owner's property and the owner get to decide the level of self defence of they aren't and no self defence is required. Yes I've heard the "You're a Dick" argument but that's aesthetics. If YAD applies in this instance then the "right" to self defence is moderated by the personal preference of others. Doesn't seem much of a principle if that is the case.

 

Could all the things that a government does be done by the "legitimate" owner of land, Or are there other reasons that make these action illegitimate?

 

Yes the Statist claims principles, but upon examining those principles, they are not Universally consistent. For example, one argument you get is the Social Contract, meaning it is okay for government to tax you and to enforce laws against you because you "implicitly agree" to live under their protection, drive on their roads, go to their schools, etc. But if I provide "services" to people and claim a right to be paid according to a non-existent contract which they never agreed to, they would get that I was scamming them. Again you could go down the list, but essentially Statism makes exception to principles for people under the conceptual label of "government" which is just arbitrary. As a result, petty, manipulative, dominating, parasitic people of all kinds seek political power, so they can wear this label which turns their evil actions to good in the eyes of the society.My question was, are there situations where you would claim violence or crime is being committed by the exercise of property, which voluntarism overlooks or defends?So if I understand correctly you are trying to get a principle about when violence is justified in self-defense or defense of property. I will address this, but first I want to make a point - I don't think the best way to establish property rights is simply by threatening violence, neither is "justifying violence" the purpose of property rights. It's very important to understand this. People are not just sitting in their cabin waiting for someone to put a toe on their land so they can blow them away, people want to avoid conflict. This is the function of property claims, to avoid conflict, not to start it. A woman has a right to self-defense if she thinks she will be raped, but she would rather take steps to avoid such a situation. In the same way, there are many ways in which conflicts over property can be avoided.  If someone doesn't want to avoid conflict, it suggests that someone have a desire to hurt people, which I don't think is caused by philosophy. No one reads a book by Murray Rothbard and then goes looking to shoot trespassers.  This is the psychological element that most political philosophy ignores and overlooks in my opinion.  The point is that, people want to have a system of property that minimizes conflict over property.  They imagine that the State provides this, which of course it doesn't.  If you think that greater conflict can be avoided by collectivizing everything or some things, then I am interested to hear more, but historicaly this hasn't worked.When someone is assaulted or threatened, morality is no longer in question. If someone tries to mug you, and you have pepper spray, should you try to spray them and get away? If a man holds a couple at gunpoint and rapes the woman in front of the man, should he try to intervene and save her at the risk of his own life? When a child is forced to shoot his relatives by some paramilitary group, should he refuse, or shoot the terrorists? I don't know if you have ever been in a threatening situation, but your state of mind changes completely. There is no moral action in these kinds of situations.  Your brain activity recedes to your hypothalamus, and you act, without thinking about consequences or moral reasoning.  Traumatized people tend to be stuck in that threatened mindset, and have a great deal of difficulty making moral choices, so they will choose to dominate the weak, or accept the domination of those they perceive as "other", or submit to domination of the strong.This is where the right of self-defense comes in - when people are no longer in a voluntary situation, they do what they can. Freedom is fundamentally a) a state of mind and b) a condition of interaction between people. When that condition no longer exists, we don't fault people for reacting in the moment. In the case of the campers on private property, communication and negotiation is still possible. Free, compassionate, people will choose this way.  Traumatized people will seek conflict regardless of the economic system. 

I still don't quite understand why you are hung up on this though. Perhaps you are leading to something? Is the structural violence which is a result of the market, somehow caused by people's willingness and belief in using violence to defend property? Do you have some reason to believe that in a stateless society, where market interaction is accepted, violence against trespassers would become a significant problem?