Why Is Peaceful Parenting Possible but Peaceful Government Not Possible?

[LifeIsBrief]

No, you're ignoring the fact that I did answer your question.  If Bob cares about gradualism... Step one, stop murdering people to steal his salary.  It's not that complicated.  You want me to pretend, that Bob only has 2 very specific options, so that I pick the one you like... That's nonsense. Bob as an individual, is capable of making a nearly infinite number of choices.  If he wants to move gradually towards being a moral person, he will stop working for an immoral entity, and get a job doing something productive.

 

If he cares about wealth, efficiency, or relative morality... Yeah, he can keep being evil, and call it gradualism.  That's just him being intellectually dishonest though.  Being less evil, is not the same as being more moral.

[STer]

No, you're ignoring the fact that I did answer your question.  If Bob cares about gradualism... Step one, stop murdering people to steal his salary.  It's not that complicated.  You want me to pretend, that Bob only has 2 very specific options, so that I pick the one you like... That's nonsense. Bob as an individual, is capable of making a nearly infinite number of choices.  If he wants to move gradually towards being a moral person, he will stop working for an immoral entity, and get a job doing something productive.

 

If he cares about wealth, efficiency, or relative morality... Yeah, he can keep being evil, and call it gradualism.  That's just him being intellectually dishonest though.  Being less evil, is not the same as being more moral.

 

I don't think you understand what gradualism means. Anyway thanks for your views.

[LifeIsBrief]

I understand what gradualism means.  I just don't see changing your job title as catastrophism.  It was worth a shot. Peace, love, and the best of luck to you.

[STer]

Thank you for addressing the gradualism issue head on.

 

I didn't say it's catastrophism. Making changes to assert less power within your current job is gradual change. Changing jobs to one that offers less power to assert is somewhat less gradual. You seem to be saying that changes made to restrain power within a job that offers too much power are meaningless. You seem to be saying that if Bob stays in his job, but restrains his power, that is worthless to you. You also seem to ignore that if Bob quits the job, he will probably be replaced by someone who restrains themselves even less so you will get a net worsening of the situation, not a net benefit.

 

The tricky thing about it is that, while you may prefer the position not to exist at all, as long as it does exist, it would be better for someone like Bob to be in that position than someone else.

[LifeIsBrief]

This is mostly my fault. I started to be a bit of a dick towards the end, and I apologize.  I can express myself more clearly now. 

 

What I mean, is that I see Libertarianism, as an individual approach, to gradualism.  I think once the individual begins to use the Non Aggression Principle, in their daily life, they should take it as far as they can.  Bob's next goal, should, almost instantly become, trying to find a similar job, in the productive sector of the economy.  The fact he may not be able to do that, is something that should anger him a bit, he should discuss it with his family, and friends, maybe even co workers.  It should also inspire him to improve his resume, or use that salary to buy some land, and farm a bit, give a little back.

 

Him doing good, restrained, work in this situation, may be the best he can do, at the moment, but once you take, NAP, or... to be honest, most moral codes, to their logical conclusion... What you should be against is the situation.  As an individual, you can rise above that situation.  You can't change national politics without vast wealth anymore.  You can convince your family, and friends, maybe even coworkers, to embrace the principle at an individual, interpersonal level.  You can be productive, and try to speak truth to those around you.  Over generations, this will gradually change the world. 

 

Also, politicians will adapt, to try to trick us into voting for them... This will result in some gradual policy changes, but it's dangerous to put your faith in people who hide behind guns.  At best, in this stage, you can effect small local politics, to drop your sales and property taxes, but that's a pretty shallow victory when you're paying for flying killer robots.  Really, it's about creating thriving, peaceful, interpersonal communities, one person at a time.  It's a different approach to gradualism.

 

This a lot of personal interpretation by the way, I wouldn't claim to speak for all libertarians, or people on the forum, I'm pretty new here.

 

Edit:  Deliciously ironic, isn't it?  The movie poster is my avatar, and I'm telling you to ignore one of the themes   It probably sounds like I'm talking to myself a bit here, because the forum only recently convinced me of the "one person at a time" philosophy. The more I think about it rationally though, especially with the NSA and the police state... You don't want anarchists gathering in large groups, or having heroes.  I don't need to be on a list as a supporter.  It's just not that popular... yet.  Hopefully one day.

[JSDev]

So my response was about gradual steps in the right direction vs. the expectation of instant absolute change. Then you reply with no reference to that at all just sort of repeating your anti-government commentary. Is this a dialogue or are you just now and then referencing things I say in the course of a general anti-government monologue? If the latter, then there isn't really any reason for me to continue responding to you. You're just repeating the same thing over and over which is "government is bad and Bob shouldn't do government." There are about 100 threads right now where you can go just generally bash government. Does this have to be another?

 

I'd like your thoughts on my post regarding gradual steps in the right direction vs. the expectation of instant absolute change, if you are willing.

 

There can be NO gradualism. You're either stealing from me or you're not. I can imagine a situation where you steal from me less and less over time, to where eventually you're not stealing from me anymore. But until that time, you're still a thief.

Definitions of government don't preclude the possibility of a "opt-out" government.

 

I gave my reasons why an "opt-out" government was a contradiction of terms, and you come back with "no it's not". 

[Flake]

There can be NO gradualism. You're either stealing from me or you're not. I can imagine a situation where you steal from me less and less over time, to where eventually you're not stealing from me anymore. But until that time, you're still a thief.

 

I gave my reasons why an "opt-out" government was a contradiction of terms, and you come back with "no it's not". 

I'm sure you can imagine a small group of people which decide to make a few members of the group the leaders. Those leaders are now their government and the whole thing is voluntary. You could also imagine the government of that small group allowing people to leave the group, does them letting those people leave make the leaders any less of a government, you could say that the government is making a bad decision in allowing people to leave, but as long as the group listens to the leaders the leaders remain their government. You can call this a free market arrangement instead but it fits with the definition of government.

[JSDev]

 You can call this a free market arrangement instead but it fits with the definition of government.

 

 

You realize you're just equivocating now, right? For the purpose of this discussion, that's not at all what we mean when we say "government".

[Flake]

We may associate certain things with a government but that doesn't mean that those things must apply to all governments. All that is required for something to be a government is for there to be a group who is governed and someone to govern them.

[_LiveFree_]

STer, 

 

Your original question was simple. So, I shall respond with a very simple answer. 

 

Your question, as I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong) is this: Moylneux uses the following argument against government; "If people have power, they will be corrupted by that power and abuse it. Therefore, no government." But then he will come back and say that people are capable of peaceful parenting, while also saying that there is no greater power than what a parent has over a child. Isn't this contradictory, and shouldn't Molyneux stop using this argument if it is? Can people restrain themselves with power or not.....?

 

On the surface, yes, this is contradictory, but when you look at it further it is not. 

 

Can people restrain themselves? Yes.

Can people restrain themselves in a position that doesn't allow them to restrain themselves? No. 

 

Government is non-restraint. The only restraint when it comes to government is for there not to be one.

 

Governments arise out of peoples' dysfunction in familial relationships. Abuse experienced as a child will lead an adult to believe that the initiation of force is the only method to solve certain problems. Trying to fight the government in order to reduce the government is an unwinnable battle. The only way to win the battle is to go to the source and that is parenting. Can people exercise restraint when they are in a position of power? Absolutely. Can they exercise restraint when they are in a position of power that by the mere fact that that position exists implies the constant initiation of force. No way. The problems of government will never be solved with government. They will be solved with peaceful parenting. Being a parent does not mean that by your very existence you are violating the NAP. The very existence of a government DOES imply this. 

 

Edit***  --> ("Power", as you have defined it earlier in this thread, is the opposite of peaceful parenting. As a peaceful parent, you are not using "Power", and therefore, you are peaceful. Government on the other hand is institutionalized "Power" and, therefore, corrupts. When parents use power over their children, the parent is corrupted and the child is corrupted. That child will grow into an adult who looks to the government's power as a source of problem solving. Peaceful parenting is completely benevolent. Government cannot be benevolent by it's very definition.)

//edit

 

If I become a CEO of a major company (without using government violence!), I have quite a bit of power over my employees. But all of my millions of customers still maintain even more power over me. In a state of nature, there is no monopoly. Government is a monopoly of power and therefore, cannot be restrained. 

 

 

(do you actually disagree that government is the institutionalization of the initiation of force, or are you playing devil's advocate?)

We may associate certain things with a government but that doesn't mean that those things must apply to all governments. All that is required for something to be a government is for there to be a group who is governed and someone to govern them.

 

This is incorrect. Government is involuntary. To apply the descriptor of "voluntary" to government changes its form and it is no longer government.

 

An orange can be described using many adjectives. But if I use the term "plastic", then I'm no longer talking about an orange.  

[Flake]

This is incorrect. Government is involuntary. To apply the descriptor of "voluntary" to government changes its form and it is no longer government.

 

An orange can be described using many adjectives. But if I use the term "plastic", then I'm no longer talking about an orange.  

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't read my last two posts. You need to give a compelling reason why government must always be involuntary.

[_LiveFree_]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't read my last two posts. You need to give a compelling reason why government must always be involuntary.

 

 

Uh, no I don't. You need to give an example (as in, it occurred in reality and is not a thought experiment) of a voluntary government. If I say that all oranges are round and then show you example after example, then there is plenty of evidence to support "Oranges are round". But if you then say, "Oranges can also be triangular," it is not logical for me to have to prove why all oranges must be round. All you need to do is provide one, and just one, example of when a government is voluntary. 

 

That is all you have to do. Provide one example.

You've got 5000 years of recorded human history and the internet. Find one example of when government was voluntary. If you can do this, I will (I must!) no longer be an anarchist. You can completely change my point of view with one tiny little example. 

[Flake]

Uh, no I don't. You need to give an example (as in, it occurred in reality and is not a thought experiment) of a voluntary government.

You realize you are asking what Statists ask us anarcho-capitalists to do right? Theoretically a voluntary government is possible, I provided a thought experiment which showed this, just as we anarcho-capitalists have shown how a anarcho-capitalist society is theoretically possible. If theoretical thought experiments aren't enough to prove that a voluntary government is possible then it also wouldn't be enough to prove that a anarcho-capitalist society is possible.

[_LiveFree_]

A thought experiment is useless if it is illogical. 

 

Anarcho-capitalism is not a thought experiment. YOU are a real world example of what a life is like without rulers.

 

Do you hold your employer hostage in order to get the job? 

Do you point a gun at your wife/husband to get them to marry you?

All of your personal relationships are voluntary. 

 

 

But, you could have just Wiki'd ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents_similar_to_anarcho-capitalism

 

Also, EBay is a great example where there is little to no government involvement and the community regulates itself. 

 

An-cap is the natural state of mankind. Government is the wet blanket trying to stretch itself over the entire race. Where the government can't stretch to, there you are likely to find an an-cap society. The one place the government wants to smother more than anything is the human "spirit" (not to be confused with some fairy tale eternal identity). 

 

 

I've provided you examples. Can you not provide me with some examples of a voluntary government?

[JSDev]

You realize you are asking what Statists ask us anarcho-capitalists to do right? Theoretically a voluntary government is possible, I provided a thought experiment which showed this, just as we anarcho-capitalists have shown how a anarcho-capitalist society is theoretically possible. If theoretical thought experiments aren't enough to prove that a voluntary government is possible then it also wouldn't be enough to prove that a anarcho-capitalist society is possible.

 

Fine, you can posit any kind of government you want, as long as it puts the guns down then there's no contradiction as originally posited by @STer  - and bob's your uncle.

[cynicist]

Why is this? If parents can learn to be peaceful despite this huge power differential, why can't people who govern learn that too? Doesn't the very idea of peaceful parenting conflict with the idea that human beings simply can't handle huge levels of power over other humans with grace and care?

 

This is more than just a theoretical question. When it comes to government, Stefan's (and other anarchists') line of thinking is "Too much power corrupts, therefore we must not have a government with a monopoly of power." Yet, when it comes to parenting, the same people don't say "Too much power corrupts, therefore, we must never allow one or two people to have that much power over their children." They aren't anarchists when it comes to the ruling position of parents.

 

I'm kind of surprised this needs to be explained. The reason anarchists don't apply this principle to the relationship of parents to children is because children can't survive on their own. So yes there is an obviously large potential for corruption that many of us know intimately from our own upbringings, but this is unavoidable in the case of any adult/child relationship (partly due to physical dependency but also mental immaturity). The other key difference is that force is not implicit in a parent/child relationship like it is in any government action. 

 

If you think this is not the case then please give me one example of a government action that doesn't include the use of force.

[STer]

We may associate certain things with a government but that doesn't mean that those things must apply to all governments. All that is required for something to be a government is for there to be a group who is governed and someone to govern them.

 

I agree with this.

 

But this whole argument is really a distraction in this thread. If you (not you, Flake, but others here) believe that once they allow someone to opt-out, it is no longer a "government" but now has some other name indicating its leadership over those that remain, then great. So what? The word "government", the label we're using, is not the issue. The structure itself is the issue. There can be an entity, whatever you choose to call it, that provides the leadership a government provides to those who want it but allows others to leave. Call it whatever you choose to call it but it is a possibility.

[Lowe D]

@ OP

 

Over time chiefs, kings, and states became less violent, more humane, and more responsible for those under their power.  That answers the question, right?

 

More peaceful gov't is possible.  We know that because we see more of it every year.  In time the state will probably be phased out, because people will have become so humane they don't want to be soldiers, etc.  That is bound to be long time from now.

 

In the meantime, public officials are virtual saints compared to their forebears, and I am glad for that.  I won't pardon evil actions, but George Bush invading foreign countries is one thing, and Ben Bernanke propping up the stock market is another.  You do the best you can in a world you didn't create, and don't understand perfectly.

[STer]

STer,  Your original question was simple. So, I shall respond with a very simple answer.  Your question, as I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong) is this: Moylneux uses the following argument against government; "If people have power, they will be corrupted by that power and abuse it. Therefore, no government." But then he will come back and say that people are capable of peaceful parenting, while also saying that there is no greater power than what a parent has over a child. Isn't this contradictory, and shouldn't Molyneux stop using this argument if it is? Can people restrain themselves with power or not.....?

Thanks, Nathan. Yes I think you accurately understood my question. 

On the surface, yes, this is contradictory, but when you look at it further it is not.  Can people restrain themselves? Yes.Can people restrain themselves in a position that doesn't allow them to restrain themselves? No.  Government is non-restraint. The only restraint when it comes to government is for there not to be one.

If government is non-restraint, then how do you explain that some governments are more oppressive and others less so? How do you explain that some governments, even in the same country at various times, have higher taxes or lower taxes, or harsher penalties for crimes or more lenient penalties for crimes? And why is it that everyone so far in this thread that answered has agreed that Bob can in fact restrain himself in his government job to some extent (even if they also wish he'd go further and leave it)? 

Governments arise out of peoples' dysfunction in familial relationships. Abuse experienced as a child will lead an adult to believe that the initiation of force is the only method to solve certain problems. Trying to fight the government in order to reduce the government is an unwinnable battle. The only way to win the battle is to go to the source and that is parenting. Can people exercise restraint when they are in a position of power? Absolutely. Can they exercise restraint when they are in a position of power that by the mere fact that that position exists implies the constant initiation of force. No way. The problems of government will never be solved with government. They will be solved with peaceful parenting. Being a parent does not mean that by your very existence you are violating the NAP. The very existence of a government DOES imply this.

As I said in my last post, if you want to argue that once those in government restrain themselves to a certain point it's no longer a government, fine. It's a semantic issue. If you want to change the term you use for it past a certain point of restraint go ahead. The question doesn't change. It is just reworded from "Could a government of oppression transition to a government based on choice?" to "Could a government of oppression transition to a whatchamacallit based on choice?" The structure of the discussion changes none, just the term. 

Edit***  --> ("Power", as you have defined it earlier in this thread, is the opposite of peaceful parenting. As a peaceful parent, you are not using "Power", and therefore, you are peaceful. Government on the other hand is institutionalized "Power" and, therefore, corrupts. When parents use power over their children, the parent is corrupted and the child is corrupted. That child will grow into an adult who looks to the government's power as a source of problem solving. Peaceful parenting is completely benevolent. Government cannot be benevolent by it's very definition.)//edit

Power, as I'm defining it, has to do with the disparity in ability to control. A peaceful parent still has that greater power to control. They may not use it, but they have it. Just as I have the power to lift a book, even if I choose not to do it. Power is a potential you have, whether you apply it or not. Both parents and governments have power. You are also oversimplifying because you keep saying that if parents use power, the child will grow into an adult who looks to government to solve problems, yet this entire board is filled with people whose parents used power and are adults who do not look to the government to solve problems. Clearly this is more complicated than you are laying it out as. 

If I become a CEO of a major company (without using government violence!), I have quite a bit of power over my employees. But all of my millions of customers still maintain even more power over me. In a state of nature, there is no monopoly. Government is a monopoly of power and therefore, cannot be restrained.   (do you actually disagree that government is the institutionalization of the initiation of force, or are you playing devil's advocate?) This is incorrect. Government is involuntary. To apply the descriptor of "voluntary" to government changes its form and it is no longer government. An orange can be described using many adjectives. But if I use the term "plastic", then I'm no longer talking about an orange.

Governments are the institutionalization of a monopoly on being allowed to use force. Just as parents are allowed to use force over their kids (pretty much the only example of where someone is allowed to initiate force against someone else that I can think of, which makes this contrast pretty interesting).

 

Already pointed out the irrelevance of your definition of government.

 

Involuntary government ==> voluntary government or...

Involuntary government ==> voluntary whatchamacallit

 

It doesn't matter if you change the name once it becomes voluntary. What matters is can one transition to the other.

Uh, no I don't. You need to give an example (as in, it occurred in reality and is not a thought experiment) of a voluntary government. If I say that all oranges are round and then show you example after example, then there is plenty of evidence to support "Oranges are round". But if you then say, "Oranges can also be triangular," it is not logical for me to have to prove why all oranges must be round. All you need to do is provide one, and just one, example of when a government is voluntary. 

 

That is all you have to do. Provide one example.

You've got 5000 years of recorded human history and the internet. Find one example of when government was voluntary. If you can do this, I will (I must!) no longer be an anarchist. You can completely change my point of view with one tiny little example. 

 

This is literally false that to prove something can be a certain way you have to give a concrete example where it was for so many reasons. And it's the same false logic that other people use to tell anarchists that anarchism is impossible. Just as you say "you have to show me a voluntary government or else that proves voluntary government can't exist" they say "You have to show me a working modern anarchist society or else that means working modern anarchist societies can't exist."

 

This entire idea that if you don't have an example of something that proves it is impossible is massively flawed. I could point out so many other flaws in it but hopefully you get the point.

[_LiveFree_]

Ok, then show me an example where a government has through peaceful means shrunk.

[STer]

I'm kind of surprised this needs to be explained. The reason anarchists don't apply this principle to the relationship of parents to children is because children can't survive on their own. So yes there is an obviously large potential for corruption that many of us know intimately from our own upbringings, but this is unavoidable in the case of any adult/child relationship (partly due to physical dependency but also mental immaturity). The other key difference is that force is not implicit in a parent/child relationship like it is in any government action. 

 

If you think this is not the case then please give me one example of a government action that doesn't include the use of force.

 

It is a false dichotomy to talk as if the options are "nuclear family with one or two parents" vs. "kids survive on their own." Nuclear families of the sort we have today didn't even exist for 99% of human history. What anarchists really want is decentralization of power so that no small group ever has too much of it. Well that's how raising of children was done for hundreds of thousands of years. More decentralized with influence and input and constant presence of an entire tribe of biologically-related extended family, not one or two parents in a closed up house with the kids behind closed doors, out of witness of everyone else most of the time.

Ok, then show me an example where a government has through peaceful means shrunk.

 

Do you still not understand that not having an example of something doesn't show it to be impossible? Things often happen in the world that haven't happened before. I can just hear you saying:

 

"Ok, then show me a machine that is able to carry humans in the air" to disprove flight 150 years ago

"Ok, then show me a machine that can help me do my taxes, word process and play video games" to disprove computers 200 years ago

 

I can go on and on. The entire concept that someone has to give an already existing example of something to show it is possible is so fallacious it undermines any rationality.

 

This part below was meant to be a new post:

I have one more question that seems to me pretty important.

 

Stefans' idea, which most people at FDR seem to agree with, is that when parents raise their kids peacefully, this will then lead to the dissolution of governments. But I don't think I've ever heard how one exactly leads to the other in practice.

 

OK so we have a government now, which people here believe is inherently violent and oppressive and cannot possibly be otherwise.

 

So then parents parent peacefully, so up comes a generation of people who do not approve of violence and oppression.

 

Somehow, apparently, their disapproval ends up culminating in there being no government?

 

If government cannot restrain itself, then what is the mechanism that translates the values of this more peaceful generation into the non-existence of government? Because the way I'm seeing it, the government is still there as they come up, and if you are saying it is not possible for government to wind down its oppression, then how does it dissolve?

[Lowe D]

I think the amount of restraint someone shows, when he's in power over others, has everything to do with how much restraint his parents showed, when they were in power over him.

 

Public officials have shown progressively more restraint in their dealings with the people, as their parents have shown progressively more restraint, understanding, and patience.

 

...

 

To answer your most recent question, public officials don't start off that way.  They have to be recruited from the public.  As the public becomes increasingly less fond of public jobs, such as policeman, etc, the pool of recruits shrinks.  The state dissolves, one department at a time.  This process is what's making the church slowly vanish from the developed world.

[_LiveFree_]

 

 

Do you still not understand that not having an example of something doesn't show it to be impossible? Things often happen in the world that haven't happened before. I can just hear you saying:

 

"Ok, then show me a machine that is able to carry humans in the air" to disprove flight 150 years ago

"Ok, then show me a machine that can help me do my taxes, word process and play video games" to disprove computers 200 years ago

 

I can go on and on. The entire concept that someone has to give an already existing example of something to show it is possible is so fallacious it undermines any rationality.

 

 

Showing evidence of something is at least needed. You haven't even done that. A thought experiment is not evidence. 

 

"Show me an example of a machine that is able to carry humans in the air." But this isn't the same because we have examples of other animals that can fly. Flight occurs in nature. Figuring out how to get humans to fly is simply a matter of physics. 

 

"Show me a modern day computer 200 years ago." This is silly. A government that is voluntary is a logical fallacy, not a technology. Logic is timeless. What is logical in one time period is logical in another. Show me a square circle. Hasn't happened yet? Well that doesn't mean it can't! . . . no.

 

 

You can't just make an argument that has no logical basis or evidential proof, and then complain when people don't buy it. You have provided no reasonable logic, you have provided no evidence or examples. You simply have not made the case that there is such a thing as voluntary government. And your original question hinges on "voluntary government" being a real thing or not. If it is not, then your question is invalid. 

 

This part below was meant to be a new post:

I have one more question that seems to me pretty important.

 

Stefans' idea, which most people at FDR seem to agree with, is that when parents raise their kids peacefully, this will then lead to the dissolution of governments. But I don't think I've ever heard how one exactly leads to the other in practice.

 

OK so we have a government now, which people here believe is inherently violent and oppressive and cannot possibly be otherwise.

 

So then parents parent peacefully, so up comes a generation of people who do not approve of violence and oppression.

 

Somehow, apparently, their disapproval ends up culminating in there being no government?

 

If government cannot restrain itself, then what is the mechanism that translates the values of this more peaceful generation into the non-existence of government? Because the way I'm seeing it, the government is still there as they come up, and if you are saying it is not possible for government to wind down its oppression, then how does it dissolve?

 

 

Governments dissolve on their own. They extend themselves too far economically and collapse. When a government collapses, what has happened in the past is that people have set up another one. We want to prevent the new government from forming. 

[cynicist]

It is a false dichotomy to talk as if the options are "nuclear family with one or two parents" vs. "kids survive on their own." Nuclear families of the sort we have today didn't even exist for 99% of human history. What anarchists really want is decentralization of power so that no small group ever has too much of it. Well that's how raising of children was done for hundreds of thousands of years. More decentralized with influence and input and constant presence of an entire tribe of biologically-related extended family, not one or two parents in a closed up house with the kids behind closed doors, out of witness of everyone else most of the time.

 

So then parents parent peacefully, so up comes a generation of people who do not approve of violence and oppression.

 

Somehow, apparently, their disapproval ends up culminating in there being no government?

 

If government cannot restrain itself, then what is the mechanism that translates the values of this more peaceful generation into the non-existence of government? Because the way I'm seeing it, the government is still there as they come up, and if you are saying it is not possible for government to wind down its oppression, then how does it dissolve?

 

No it's not a false dichotomy because I'm not suggesting that the options are "nuclear family" or "kids on their own", the options are "adults have power over children" or "children manage their own lives". Clearly since children aren't capable of living on their own adult power is always a risk. You talk about mitigating it through decentralization, which frankly is irrelevent to the point, which is that there is no situation where children can be on their own while the same is not true for adults and their relationship with government. You glossed over my point entirely and didn't address the fact that government can't even do anything without initiating force, which is not true for parents, which indicates to me that this is probably something emotional going on in the background for you.

 

What you are not understanding about how government is supposed to dissolve is that once people stop approving of violence they will stop approving of the government by extension, because the government can't exist without people accepting violence as a way to solve social problems. (because anything the government does involves violence)

[STer]

I think the amount of restraint someone shows, when he's in power over others, has everything to do with how much restraint his parents showed, when they were in power over him.

 

Public officials have shown progressively more restraint in their dealings with the people, as their parents have shown progressively more restraint, understanding, and patience.

 

...

 

To answer your most recent question, public officials don't start off that way.  They have to be recruited from the public.  As the public becomes increasingly less fond of public jobs, such as policeman, etc, the pool of recruits shrinks.  The state dissolves, one department at a time.  This process is what's making the church slowly vanish from the developed world.

 

If how much restraint you show has everything to do with how much restraint your parents showed, then howcome there are so many abused children that end up on these forums promoting non-aggression? Doesn't that show it doesn't have "everything" to do with the parents and has a lot to do with other factors too?

 

If you're saying the mechanism is that, as the population is raised peacefully, they simply will refuse to take government jobs or run for office, I don't see how this works. As everyone here keeps pointing out, the government uses force. And they claim the government cannot restrain itself from using force. Therefore, will it not use force to make people participate, just as when there is a draft?

Showing evidence of something is at least needed. You haven't even done that. A thought experiment is not evidence. 

 

"Show me an example of a machine that is able to carry humans in the air." But this isn't the same because we have examples of other animals that can fly. Flight occurs in nature. Figuring out how to get humans to fly is simply a matter of physics. 

 

"Show me a modern day computer 200 years ago." This is silly. A government that is voluntary is a logical fallacy, not a technology. Logic is timeless. What is logical in one time period is logical in another. Show me a square circle. Hasn't happened yet? Well that doesn't mean it can't! . . . no.

 

 

You can't just make an argument that has no logical basis or evidential proof, and then complain when people don't buy it. You have provided no reasonable logic, you have provided no evidence or examples. You simply have not made the case that there is such a thing as voluntary government. And your original question hinges on "voluntary government" being a real thing or not. If it is not, then your question is invalid. 

 

 

Governments dissolve on their own. They extend themselves too far economically and collapse. When a government collapses, what has happened in the past is that people have set up another one. We want to prevent the new government from forming. 

 

I see that you ignored the entire point that "voluntary government" or "voluntary whatchamcallit" are the same discussion. Your attempt to keep focusing on the semantics, even when the semantics don't matter, is keeping us off the topic of whether an involuntary government can transition to a voluntary entity, whatever you want to call it.

 

Forget the question "Can a government become voluntary and still be a government?" Instead, the question is "Can a government become voluntary, even if, having done so, it takes on another name?"

 

I see, so you see peaceful parenting as just preparing people so as not to set up a new government when the existing ones collapse due to economics. You don't see peaceful parenting bringing about the dissolution of the governments though. I understand.

No it's not a false dichotomy because I'm not suggesting that the options are "nuclear family" or "kids on their own", the options are "adults have power over children" or "children manage their own lives". Clearly since children aren't capable of living on their own adult power is always a risk. You talk about mitigating it through decentralization, which frankly is irrelevent to the point, which is that there is no situation where children can be on their own while the same is not true for adults and their relationship with government. You glossed over my point entirely and didn't address the fact that government can't even do anything without initiating force, which is not true for parents, which indicates to me that this is probably something emotional going on in the background for you.

 

What you are not understanding about how government is supposed to dissolve is that once people stop approving of violence they will stop approving of the government by extension, because the government can't exist without people accepting violence as a way to solve social problems. (because anything the government does involves violence)

 

The issue here isn't power but monopoly of power. Adults will always have power over children. Frankly, some adults will always have power over other adults, even if simply because some of them are bigger and stronger and could use it. What we try to avoid is allowing too much power to concentrate too centrally. That is why Stefan says that it is too dangerous to have an entity like the state with too much concentrated power. Surely he isn't under any illusion that without a state nobody would have any power over anyone. It's simply that when it's not so concentrated it's not as big of a catastrophe in his view. Similarly, spreading power over children amongst 100 adults is far different than concentrating it amongst 1 or 2.

 

Government can do plenty of things without using force. For example, when you pay more than you owe in taxes, the government sends you back a refund. It doesn't use force to keep the extra taxes. And it doesn't use force to give you back the extra. It may threaten force to get the taxes it does keep, but it doesn't use it to refund the extra. It just sends you your refund. The government has a volunteer military right now and many people volunteer. It doesn't use force to get those people to enlist as it currently stands. Now I'm not saying once they are in they don't use force in their job in the military. But military recruitment, currently, doesn't use force. I could continue listing example after example. It's too easy when you give an extreme statement like "government can't even do anything without initiating force." Or did I misunderstand what you mean by that? Because certainly governments don't use force in every single specific thing they do. And, no matter how much you and many others may dislike government, there are also many people who are generally ok with it and willingly go along with it without any force necessary. The threat of force may always be there in a general sense, but some people go along even without it because they actually want there to be a government and see it as beneficial.

 

"because the government can't exist without people accepting violence as a way to solve social problems."

 

If the government can only exist if people accept violence, then are you actually saying the government cannot force people and the people are the ones in control? Isn't the idea of violence that it allows you to force someone to do something regardless of whether they accept violence as legitimate or not? You seem to be saying violence only works against those who think violence is legitimate, which I think is false. Violence works against anyone who is too weak to protect themselves against it, whether they accept it as legitimate or not.

[LifeIsBrief]

If how much restraint you show has everything to do with how much restraint your parents showed, then howcome there are so many abused children that end up on these forums promoting non-aggression? Doesn't that show it doesn't have "everything" to do with the parents and has a lot to do with other factors too?

 

I may disagree with forum members here, but I would suggest that morality, in its entirety, has to do with the individual.  You have no choice what stimulus you receive... Only how you respond to it.

 

If you're saying the mechanism is that, as the population is raised peacefully, they simply will refuse to take government jobs or run for office, I don't see how this works. As everyone here keeps pointing out, the government uses force. And they claim the government cannot restrain itself from using force. Therefore, will it not use force to make people participate, just as when there is a draft?

 

You see exactly how this works, you then intuit how government reacts. How the government reacts has nothing to do with my personal morality.  They can draft me, legally, but I won't kill for them (unless it is in an actual self defense situation)... They are now presented with a choice, to kill or imprison me.  Whichever they choose, reveals their character to the public.  Provided I am a kind, and well liked individual, their choosing to kill or imprison me, will only result in them having less power.  Less people will look to them for moral cues.  I may die, or be imprisoned, but I do so with moral dignity.

 

I see that you ignored the entire point that "voluntary government" or "voluntary whatchamcallit" are the same discussion. Your attempt to keep focusing on the semantics, even when the semantics don't matter, is keeping us off the topic of whether an involuntary government can transition to a voluntary entity, whatever you want to call it.

 

Semantics mater.  If it's voluntary, no one is being "governed", and the word government becomes meaningless.

 

Forget the question "Can a government become voluntary and still be a government?" Instead, the question is "Can a government become voluntary, even if, having done so, it takes on another name?"

 

Theoretically yes, realistically no.  This is the difference between capitalism, and socialism.  Why? Self interest.  I believe people can "restrain force", I don't believe that they can be altruistic. No one with control of a violent entity which forces others to pay them for talking and thinking, rather than labor... Will ever give up violence.  People aren't that self sacrificing.

 

I see, so you see peaceful parenting as just preparing people so as not to set up a new government when the existing ones collapse due to economics. You don't see peaceful parenting bringing about the dissolution of the governments though. I understand.

 

Pretty much, but what you call economics, I call morality, in this context.  Governments won't fail because they can't do math (which they can't).  They will fail, because the math they practice is designed to pay people for talking rather than labor.  They will fail because they are violent, immoral, and no one likes them, not because they're broke.

Government can do plenty of things without using force.

 

False.

 

For example, when you pay more than you owe in taxes, the government sends you back a refund.

 

You mean, when they steal more than you owe.  No laborer pays taxes, they are taken.  If you paid taxes, the whole system would make a lot more sense, and be much harder to enforce.

 

It may threaten force to get the taxes it does keep, but it doesn't use it to refund the extra. It just sends you your refund.

 

If this were a bully on a playground, would it be tolerable?  He steals your lunch money, then gives you back what he doesn't spend... and this is proof that he's nonviolent?

 

The government has a volunteer military right now and many people volunteer. It doesn't use force to get those people to enlist as it currently stands.

 

The only social program the government has, which actually pays the poor for something... Teaches them violence. The fact this is a voluntary program that the desperate and poor sign up for, is a sign they like government?

 

Now I'm not saying once they are in they don't use force in their job in the military. But military recruitment, currently, doesn't use force. I could continue listing example after example. It's too easy when you give an extreme statement like "government can't even do anything without initiating force." Or did I misunderstand what you mean by that? Because certainly governments don't use force in every single specific thing they do.

 

Tax is theft.  Every single thing that the government does came from forcing productive civilians to pay for it.

 

And, no matter how much you and many others may dislike government, there are also many people who are generally ok with it and willingly go along with it without any force necessary.

 

False.  Not responding to violence, with violence, is not the same thing as being "generally ok".  Oppressed, and angry, but nonviolent would be better words.  Non revolution, is not the equivalent of happiness.  Recent congress approval ratings hover under 20%

 

The threat of force may always be there in a general sense, but some people go along even without it because they actually want there to be a government and see it as beneficial.

 

If that were true, it would be voluntary.

 

If the government can only exist if people accept violence, then are you actually saying the government cannot force people and the people are the ones in control? Isn't the idea of violence that it allows you to force someone to do something regardless of whether they accept violence as legitimate or not? You seem to be saying violence only works against those who think violence is legitimate, which I think is false. Violence works against anyone who is too weak to protect themselves against it, whether they accept it as legitimate or not.

 

Here, I may disagree with the board again, but... I would say that there is no such thing as force, only violence, and cowards.  If you threaten to kill me, if I don't submit to a deity, for example... I will die, but you haven't changed my mind.  You have, in fact provided the world with an obvious example, of why people should not listen to people who follow your particular deity.  "They can take our lives, but they will never take, our freedom!" William Wallace according to a movie

[_LiveFree_]

STer,

 

You keep moving the goal posts. From what I've seen of you in this conversation, you are not interested in finding the truth, only in winning. Well, I'm not interested in debating you anymore. The criteria for making your case is very simple, yet you continue to dodge it. When I call you on it, you say I'm not addressing your point. 

 

This is a waste of time.

[Lowe D]

If how much restraint you show has everything to do with how much restraint your parents showed, then howcome there are so many abused children that end up on these forums promoting non-aggression? Doesn't that show it doesn't have "everything" to do with the parents and has a lot to do with other factors too?

 

If you're saying the mechanism is that, as the population is raised peacefully, they simply will refuse to take government jobs or run for office, I don't see how this works. As everyone here keeps pointing out, the government uses force. And they claim the government cannot restrain itself from using force. Therefore, will it not use force to make people participate, just as when there is a draft?

 

Would people who promote non-aggression on this forum, also show restraint if they had power over others?  Surely some would, but not all.

 

Abused children can heal through self work, therapy, or beneficent circumstances, and then they will show more restraint than their abusive parents.  The few people who actively guide themselves to become much kinder than their parents, are the exception that proves the rule.  Those exceptions add up over time, creating the long term trend of increasing restraint, etc.  H/e in the present there are never many of them.

 

...

 

The state only uses force to the extent it is socially approved.  If there were no greater influence affecting violent institutions, than their own violent power, the church wouldn't be the toothless organization it is now.  Long ago they used force all the time, but not anymore.  Violence doesn't have staying power against changes in social mores.

 

Without social approval, the draft you theorize would never happen.  That's why there is no US draft anymore.  The people got sick of it during the Vietnam War, and they withdrew their support.

 

 

EDIT:  You're right about the exceptions to the determinism of parental treatment.  They are real, and worth mentioning.  I was annoyed when I saw you bring it up, but I can't say it isn't true.  People can and sometimes do better than their parents taught them, and that includes public officials.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Lowe D

[JamesP]

Government itself isn't even the problem.  If people wanted to submit themselves to a central authority, that's fine, as long as they do not wish to inflict their preferences on everybody else through the point of a gun.  So, in that way, a peaceful government is possible.

 

But trying to directly bring about a peaceful government is putting the cart well before the horse.  You can try for it, but you're almost certainly going to fail, and you will almost certainly not be able to escape the violent governments of the current era.

 

It's the initiation of violence that's the problem, not the hierarchy.  The greater the power disparity, the easier it is to abuse that power.  But you can have a disparity of power without it being abusive, and that is what makes peaceful parenting possible.

 

Peaceful government would be an effect of millions of factors entirely out of your control.  Peaceful parenting is something you can control right now with your very own words and hands.

[Kevin Beal]

Government itself isn't even the problem.  If people wanted to submit themselves to a central authority, that's fine, as long as they do not wish to inflict their preferences on everybody else through the point of a gun.  So, in that way, a peaceful government is possible.

I thought you made a great point, but I want to quibble with this bit. Is it really a government if it's not a violent monopoly?

[Lowe D]

It's not the state, but you might call it gov't.  The state has been getting more peaceful for a long time, so there is reason to think it will eventually transition into a non-coercive organization.

 

By that time it will have shrunken, by the attrition of its ranks, and many of its services will have become private.  In a way this has already started.  Today most US federal projects are implemented by private contractors.  The federal budget doesn't reflect the size of the state, as much as the amount of business being done through the state.

 

That is hardly free market, but it's a step in the right direction.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Lowe D

[JamesP]

I thought you made a great point, but I want to quibble with this bit. Is it really a government if it's not a violent monopoly?

 

Totally a fair point... I was not at all clear what I meant by "government."  In this context, I just meant "a body of people which provide governance," not the current institution we see today.  I think you could argue that the word "government" is really just a euphemism for "violent, coercive authority," not a voluntary interaction to the mutual benefit of interested parties.

 

And, really, we do have "voluntary governments" today, to an extent, if you consider HOAs and the like.  I have heard lots of stories (so, all hearsay, but it fits the "poor parenting" theory) which indicate that HOAs attract the power-hungry, the petty, and the vindictive... but that is a further extension on people's experiences of authority and their unresolved projections on others.

 

Does that make sense?

It's not the state, but you might call it gov't.  The state has been getting more peaceful for a long time, so there is reason to think it will eventually transition into a non-coercive organization.

 

By that time it will have shrunken, by the attrition of its ranks, and many of its services will have become private.  In a way this has already started.  Today most US federal projects are implemented by private contractors.  The federal budget doesn't reflect the size of the state, as much as the amount of business being done through the state.

 

That is hardly free market, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

I wouldn't consider trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities forced to be paid by future generations a net reduction in violence.  I also don't think you can say that an institution committed to using violence really ever gets "more peaceful."  I think they instead use bribes and threats to a greater extent, which only makes it seem more peaceful.  There is always the spectre of escalation just over the horizon.

 

Cancer doesn't transition into healthy tissue.  Evil doesn't transition into good.  You have to kill it in order for health and goodness to flourish.

[Kevin Beal]

Totally a fair point... I was not at all clear what I meant by "government."  In this context, I just meant "a body of people which provide governance," not the current institution we see today.  I think you could argue that the word "government" is really just a euphemism for "violent, coercive authority," not a voluntary interaction to the mutual benefit of interested parties.

 

And, really, we do have "voluntary governments" today, to an extent, if you consider HOAs and the like.  I have heard lots of stories (so, all hearsay, but it fits the "poor parenting" theory) which indicate that HOAs attract the power-hungry, the petty, and the vindictive... but that is a further extension on people's experiences of authority and their unresolved projections on others.

 

Does that make sense?

Yea, totally.

 

I actually like the idea of HOA's a lot, but have had no experience of them. If that's the voluntary government, then I'm all for it.

 

I would imagine that in a free society, governance would be some combination of HOA's and DRO's. (And the family of course).

[cynicist]

The issue here isn't power but monopoly of power. Adults will always have power over children. Frankly, some adults will always have power over other adults, even if simply because some of them are bigger and stronger and could use it. What we try to avoid is allowing too much power to concentrate too centrally. That is why Stefan says that it is too dangerous to have an entity like the state with too much concentrated power. Surely he isn't under any illusion that without a state nobody would have any power over anyone. It's simply that when it's not so concentrated it's not as big of a catastrophe in his view. Similarly, spreading power over children amongst 100 adults is far different than concentrating it amongst 1 or 2.

 

Government can do plenty of things without using force. For example, when you pay more than you owe in taxes, the government sends you back a refund. It doesn't use force to keep the extra taxes. And it doesn't use force to give you back the extra. It may threaten force to get the taxes it does keep, but it doesn't use it to refund the extra. It just sends you your refund. The government has a volunteer military right now and many people volunteer. It doesn't use force to get those people to enlist as it currently stands. Now I'm not saying once they are in they don't use force in their job in the military. But military recruitment, currently, doesn't use force. I could continue listing example after example. It's too easy when you give an extreme statement like "government can't even do anything without initiating force." Or did I misunderstand what you mean by that? Because certainly governments don't use force in every single specific thing they do. And, no matter how much you and many others may dislike government, there are also many people who are generally ok with it and willingly go along with it without any force necessary. The threat of force may always be there in a general sense, but some people go along even without it because they actually want there to be a government and see it as beneficial.

 

"because the government can't exist without people accepting violence as a way to solve social problems."

 

If the government can only exist if people accept violence, then are you actually saying the government cannot force people and the people are the ones in control? Isn't the idea of violence that it allows you to force someone to do something regardless of whether they accept violence as legitimate or not? You seem to be saying violence only works against those who think violence is legitimate, which I think is false. Violence works against anyone who is too weak to protect themselves against it, whether they accept it as legitimate or not.

 

No it's not the concentration of power that bothers anarchists, after all google has a lot of concentrated power over data but we don't view that as immoral, it is the monopoly power to initiate violence that is immoral. Once again you seem to be missing the point. If I have a boss because I work for a company, he has quite a bit of power over whether I have the job or not, and an anarchist wouldn't say that is problematic and we need to diffuse that power or whatever, because force is not involved in that interaction. The parent/child relationship has the potential for abuse, the government guarantees abuse.

 

When a government sends you a refund, where does it get the money from? Oh right theft. How does the government have the ability to hire volunteers for its military? Oh right it needs to steal money in order to pay for their salaries. When I say the government can't do anything without force I'm saying that any action they take is only possible because of force. Without theft there would be no military or tax refunds or whatever.

 

Wow I'm starting to understand where you're coming from, that argument is one hell of a twisted logical pretzel. Of course government can force people to do things against their will, but if people (to clarify, I mean society, not necessarily the individual person) view the government as legitimate authority or necessary like you argued one paragraph prior, then they will go along with it. I'm not arguing that violence only works when people think it is legitimate, I'm arguing that violence on the scale of the government is only possible if it is viewed as legitimate by the majority of people. The reason being quite logical, those in charge of the government are vastly outnumbered by the people they rule. If I try to control you with violence it is certainly possible if I'm bigger and stronger. If I try to control your whole neighborhood with violence it becomes much harder to do on my own, but a whole lot easier if your neighbors think that what I'm doing is actually morally good.

[Lowe D]

I wouldn't consider trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities forced to be paid by future generations a net reduction in violence.  I also don't think you can say that an institution committed to using violence really ever gets "more peaceful."  I think they instead use bribes and threats to a greater extent, which only makes it seem more peaceful.  There is always the spectre of escalation just over the horizon.

 

Cancer doesn't transition into healthy tissue.  Evil doesn't transition into good.  You have to kill it in order for health and goodness to flourish.

 

The public sector is a problem.  It isn't efficient compared to private business, it imprisons tens or hundreds of thousands of people unjustly, and has started several small wars recently.

 

It isn't easy to say how problematic its fiscal liabilities are.  Large as it is, the federal debt is about a quarter of the domestic credit market. The US economy isn't doing entirely badly.  Productivity is high, even with high unemployment.  Social welfare programs can't be maintained as they are, but the retirement age will keep getting raised.

 

Some will have their promised benefits reduced, even more so by provincial and municipal gov'ts than by the national, since they have solvency constraint.  That isn't a good thing, from their perspective.

 

H/e I'm sure they'd much prefer being poorer in their old age, than being run down by the Huns, or conscripted into the Red Army.  Things have gotten better.  As much as the core problems remain, I think anyone would take bribes or threats over world wars.  People change.  They get better.