Why Is Peaceful Parenting Possible but Peaceful Government Not Possible?

[Livemike]

Because governments are created by people who want to use the power of force on others to escape from accountability.  Parents are created by people whose condom broke and who stick around to face accountability.  

 

Imagine if you came across a man with serious head injuries, whose reason and physical abilities were that of an infant.  You would have as much power over him as any government has over you or a parent has over a child.  But you didn't plot and scheme to get that power.  If you abuse it you are held responsible.  You can't use your power over him to avoid the consequences of how you exercised that power.  Well you could but when he recovers or the body is found you'll be held accountable.  

 

[STer]

Because governments are created by people who want to use the power of force on others to escape from accountability.  Parents are created by people whose condom broke and who stick around to face accountability.  

 

Imagine if you came across a man with serious head injuries, whose reason and physical abilities were that of an infant.  You would have as much power over him as any government has over you or a parent has over a child.  But you didn't plot and scheme to get that power.  If you abuse it you are held responsible.  You can't use your power over him to avoid the consequences of how you exercised that power.  Well you could but when he recovers or the body is found you'll be held accountable.  

 

I don't really see the point. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the power or how the power came about. I'm simply pointing out that, once in a position of power, people can exercise restraint.

[Livemike]

OK so if that's true (and I agree) then it is incorrect to state that we can't have positions of power like those in governments because humans simply can't handle such power differentials with grace and care. Yet this is an argument I have heard Stefan make countless times.

 

I would like to establish in this thread, once and for all, that at least some human beings are indeed capable of responsibly handling positions of huge power over others, even greater power than any state has over its people. For is that not what peaceful parenting proves?

You're assuming it's possible to maintain a government without the abuse of power.  And it's not.  By definition to have a government you must abuse the power it grants.  You must force people to do things not in their own interest.  While many parents force their children to do things not in their own interests this is not mandated by parenthood.  You don't stop being a father because you don't force your children to fight your wars or pay for your violence.  You do lose your kingship if you don't force your peasants to do that.

[STer]

You're assuming it's possible to maintain a government without the abuse of power.  And it's not.  By definition to have a government you must abuse the power it grants.  You must force people to do things not in their own interest.  While many parents force their children to do things not in their own interests this is not mandated by parenthood.  You don't stop being a father because you don't force your children to fight your wars or pay for your violence.  You do lose your kingship if you don't force your peasants to do that.

 

Attempting to answer my questions in this thread by claiming that government is inherently abusive is to not answer my question at all. The nature of government is not relevant to what I'm asking (how many times can I repeat this?) It seemed relevant when I first started the thread, hence the misleading title of the thread (which I would now change if I could). As I realized within the first couple posts after starting the thread, this question is about an individual person. I even pointed out earlier in another post that we could call the person Bob. The question is not about government or its definition. The question is about Bob.

 

Bob has kids. He has great power over those children. But he can restrain his use of that power. I don't think any of us disagree and, in fact, his ability to restrain his use of power over his children is the basis of Stefan's hope for the future.

 

In addition to being a parent, Bob works a government job. He has certain power in that job because of its position. Can Bob not restrain how he uses his power in that role or can he?

 

Please, do not answer in terms of the nature or definition of government as a whole. The question, yet again, is not about government as a whole. It is about Bob and how he can act in each of these two roles.

[Mike Fleming]

 

 

It seems like all that it would take for a government not to violate NAP is that it exist to serve those who want it and those who don't want it be able to opt out. If a system worked that way, I'd say it could still be called a government. So I don't think violating the NAP is inherent in the word government. The NAP violations come when a government goes beyond serving those who support it to refusing to let those who don't opt out. You may be right that no examples of such a government exist today. But as I pointed out, that's not any more relevant than anarchists think it is when someone says there is no example of a large-scale working anarchist society today either. Not existing currently does not mean impossible.

 

As for the other side, I bet you'd be hard-pressed to seriously find any parent that hasn't violated the NAP. Even the best-intentioned parent probably, at times, has to use some amount of force to get their kids to brush their teeth or go to the doctor - things that we all agree are truly in the child's best interest. I'm pretty sure even Stefan says he has done that as a last resort at times.

 

Of course a government violates the NAP.  How does the government fund itself?  What does it do to people who don't do what it says?

 

If you are referring to a group of people that decide, voluntarily, that they are going to follow the instructions of someone or group that is fine.  But that is nothing to do with governments as we know them.

 

I'm not a parent so I can't speak to parenting.  I do know that as an adult no-one has the right to control me in any way whatsoever.  Regardless of constitutions or majority rules or other bullshit excuses.  The only reason I do what they want is because they will point a gun at me if I don't and lock me in a cage or shoot me if I resist enough.  They are thugs, but they have the guns.

 

Basically, if you as an adult, want a mommy or daddy substitute to look after you, that's fine, go right ahead.  Just don't impose it on the rest of us and make an analogy to parenting to make it seem OK.

[STer]

Of course a government violates the NAP.  How does the government fund itself?  What does it do to people who don't do what it says?

 

If you are referring to a group of people that decide, voluntarily, that they are going to follow the instructions of someone or group that is fine.  But that is nothing to do with governments as we know them.

 

I'm not a parent so I can't speak to parenting.  I do know that as an adult no-one has the right to control me in any way whatsoever.  Regardless of constitutions or majority rules or other bullshit excuses.  The only reason I do what they want is because they will point a gun at me if I don't and lock me in a cage or shoot me if I resist enough.  They are thugs, but they have the guns.

 

I said a government would not violate the NAP if it only served those who support it and let others opt out. How would it fund itself? From those who support it.

 

"Governments as we know them" is not relevant here. As I've pointed out repeatedly, if "as we know them" counts there, then anarchists will have to stop saying we can have no government because that is not how societies work "as we know them." This is a discussion of what could be, not what is "as we know it" now.

 

Beyond this I'm going to say this is a distraction. The question of whether a government as a whole could be non-abusive is for a separate thread and not relevant to this one. Since this is an anarchist forum where people have strong anti-government feelings, it seems like people will sometimes take any topic and use it as an inlet to just start giving anti-government commentary. But, this thread is not about whether government as an entire entity is good or bad.

 

It is about an individual, Bob, and his dual roles as parent and government worker, and whether he can show restraint in both or only in one. (See the post right above yours where I talk about Bob.)

[Wesley]

I said a government would not violate the NAP if it only served those who support it and let others opt out. How would it fund itself? From those who support it.

This makes it no longer a government. So no, this cannot happen.

[STer]

This makes it no longer a government. So no, this cannot happen.

 

I could reply to this, but it would only feed into the tangent since that is a separate discussion from what I'm interested in here. "Can a government rule by consent, rather than coercion?" is an interesting topic, but not the one I'm curious about here.

 

Now, do you have any comment on my question about Bob and his dual roles? That is the question I'm curious about here.

[LifeIsBrief]

Wow! You learn something new every day.  No wonder I have a weird affinity for the Amish... I think Insurance is immoral too.  There's no there, there. Still, other pacifists have been unable to avoid such taxes, and that rule is probably an America specific carve out. Doesn't stop my primary point, that in every nation, currently pacifists are forced to pay for the MIC, which they are fundamentally morally opposed too.  The Amish carve out, is a great move towards real freedom, and we should start carving up the whole thing thusly

[STer]

Wow! You learn something new every day.  No wonder I have a weird affinity for the Amish... I think Insurance is immoral too.  There's no there, there. Still, other pacifists have been unable to avoid such taxes, and that rule is probably an America specific carve out. Doesn't stop my primary point, that in every nation, currently pacifists are forced to pay for the MIC, which they are fundamentally morally opposed too.  The Amish carve out, is a great move towards real freedom, and we should start carving up the whole thing thusly

Thanks.

 

So any thoughts about Bob? (I should have named this thread "What about Bob?")

[Wesley]

I could reply to this, but it would only feed into the tangent since that is a separate discussion from what I'm interested in here. "Can a government rule by consent, rather than coercion?" is an interesting topic, but not the one I'm curious about here.

 

Now, do you have any comment on my question about Bob and his dual roles? That is the question I'm curious about here.

Yes, you keep missing the point. Government by definition of its existence is violent. Thus, no amount of restraint is possible in order to be peaceful because if government were peaceful, it would not be government.

 

Parenting is not defined by its use of force. Thus, you can be a peaceful parent through "restraint". (Though hopefully you just do not want to use force so no restraint is necessary).

[STer]

Yes, you keep missing the point. Government by definition of its existence is violent. Thus, no amount of restraint is possible in order to be peaceful because if government were peaceful, it would not be government.

 

Parenting is not defined by its use of force. Thus, you can be a peaceful parent through "restraint". (Though hopefully you just do not want to use force so no restraint is necessary).

 

I notice you did not mention Bob, even though my question is specifically about Bob. So you are simply not responding to what I'm asking. Here is the question again. Would you be so kind as to answer this question instead?

 

"Bob has kids. He has great power over those children. But he can restrain his use of that power. I don't think any of us disagree and, in fact, his ability to restrain his use of power over his children is the basis of Stefan's hope for the future.

 

In addition to being a parent, Bob works a government job. He has certain power in that job because of its position. Can Bob not restrain how he uses his power in that role or can he?

 

Please, do not answer in terms of the nature or definition of government as a whole. The question, yet again, is not about government as a whole. It is about Bob and how he can act in each of these two roles.'

[LifeIsBrief]

Thanks.

 

So any thoughts about Bob? (I should have named this thread "What about Bob?")

 

Bob, can, theoretically restrain power in his job... There are a few good police officers.  I think most of them would prefer if it was a voluntary, not for profit organization that didn't jail drug addicts though.  The organization Bob works for, provided it enforces principles that directly violate NAP, is not peaceful.  Bob, in restraining himself as a police officer, and not abusing his children, and preferably, advocating for a stateless society, and rehabilitation reform, is doing everything he can to be a good person, in the situation he is in.  Until the state has followed his example, they cannot be peaceful. When they follow his example, they will likely become a charity organization... but that will take a few generations.

[STer]

Bob, can, theoretically restrain power in his job... There are a few good police officers.  I think most of them would prefer if it was a voluntary, not for profit organization that didn't jail drug addicts though.  The organization Bob works for, provided it enforces principles that directly violate NAP, is not peaceful.  Bob, in restraining himself as a police officer, and not abusing his children, and preferably, advocating for a stateless society, and rehabilitation reform, is doing everything he can to be a good person, in the situation he is in.  Until the state has followed his example, they cannot be peaceful. When they follow his example, they will likely become a charity organization... but that will take a few generations.

 

Thank you for actually answering the question that, yes, he can restrain power in his job...even though you then used it as a foundation to go on another general anti-government commentary, despite me asking over and over not to answer about government in general, just about Bob as an individual

 

It's interesting that anarcho-capitalists are all about the individual and the power of the individual to make bottom-up change. Yet, here I keep trying to focus on this individual, Bob, and even in the few cases where anyone will even answer my question about him, it's followed with mostly focus on the larger structure.

 

Apparently, Bob can restrain his power, but the structure as a whole is violent so his individual choice isn't even worth focusing on. And it seems like nobody can just say that, yes, he can restrain his power, without then going on to add a litany of commentary about how bad government in general is, even though I keep pointing out that is not what I'm asking about here. I'm starting to find that as interesting as the question itself. Is there something about admitting that Bob can restrain his power even in a government role that requires it be followed with explanation of how bad government as a whole is?

[Wesley]

A soldier by definition kills people and gets his paycheck from violence. This is like saying can an individual soldier restrain himself by not killing people, not using force, and not taking payment from the proceeds of force.

 

No.

 

His job is defined by the existence of force. It is possible for an individual to not commit force directly, but no amount of restraint can change the nature of actions as a government employee because they are defined by force. They only exist because of the force.

 

The only actions he could do to not commit or support force would be to not do his job and to not accept his paycheck which means that Bob would have to basically quit his job and he would not be a government employee.

 

No amount of restraint can turn the job of enacting force and getting paid through the proceeds of force into a virtuous job not existing in force, for that would define it out of his current job.

 

This is like having a soldier. Only they aren't paid through taxes and they don't kill people. This defines them out of being a soldier.

 

Is this clear?

[STer]

A soldier by definition kills people and gets his paycheck from violence. This is like saying can an individual soldier restrain himself by not killing people, not using force, and not taking payment from the proceeds of force.

 

No.

 

His job is defined by the existence of force. It is possible for an individual to not commit force directly, but no amount of restraint can change the nature of actions as a government employee because they are defined by force. They only exist because of the force.

 

The only actions he could do to not commit or support force would be to not do his job and to not accept his paycheck which means that Bob would have to basically quit his job and he would not be a government employee.

 

No amount of restraint can turn the job of enacting force and getting paid through the proceeds of force into a virtuous job not existing in force, for that would define it out of his current job.

 

This is like having a soldier. Only they aren't paid through taxes and they don't kill people. This defines them out of being a soldier.

 

Is this clear?

 

The question was not "Can Bob, as a government employee, never be involved in the use of force?" The question was "Can Bob use restraint in the exercise of his power?" You seem to have changed the second question into the first. The definition of restraint is exercising less power than one could use if they chose to.

[Wesley]

The question was not "Can Bob, as a government employee, never be involved in the use of force?" The question was "Can Bob use restraint in the exercise of his power?" You seem to have changed the second question into the first. The definition of restraint is exercising less power than one could use if they chose to.

This is not an important discussion. (I am not conflating these, but just an analogy to show absurdity) That is like saying "I am not asking if a rapist could not rape, I am asking if they could restrain themselves and only rape her for half as long as he would have anyway".

 

Yes, there could be less rape, less theft, less assault, less killing, or less threats, however it is still based on the existence of these uses of force and thus should not exist.

 

Any rape, assault, killing, threats, or theft is too much.

[STer]

This is not an important discussion. (I am not conflating these, but just an analogy to show absurdity) That is like saying "I am not asking if a rapist could not rape, I am asking if they could restrain themselves and only rape her for half as long as he would have anyway".

 

Yes, there could be less rape, less theft, less assault, less killing, or less threats, however it is still based on the existence of these uses of force and thus should not exist.

 

Any rape, assault, killing, threats, or theft is too much.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. But did you just basically say that there could be less rape, less theft, less assault, less killing and less threats but that discussion of such a thing is unimportant? I'm really trying to understand if that's what you just said. Are you basically saying that unless we can reduce these things to 0, the reductions are unimportant?

[LifeIsBrief]

Now that you've changed the focus of the question, from peaceful government, to Bob the Imaginary Individual... Yes, a person can theoretically restrain force... While operating in a system, government, which is in its nature, force. In working for that system however, he is violating his own morality, and the NAP, for the purpose of surviving in a system.  A system in which, the alternative, is another more forceful man being hired.

 

He is violating the NAP.... but he can restrain force... as much as possible, in the horrifying situation he finds himself in. The same way people with children and a substantive income violate the NAP when they pay taxes... but they're also perfectly good people dealing with the situation they were born in to. 

 

In essence, at the individual level, yes you're right... but it's still a tragedy.

[Wesley]

Correct me if I'm wrong. But did you just basically say that there could be less rape, less theft, less assault, less killing and less threats but that discussion of such a thing is unimportant? I'm really trying to understand if that's what you just said. Are you basically saying that unless we can reduce these things to 0, the reductions are unimportant?

I may have, but I would like to correct what I said to make the words match my thoughts.

 

If someone rapes a girl for 10 minutes and the later he rapes her for 5 minutes, I don't say "Oh, look! He is showing so much restraint and this is so good that there is less rape so now rapist is good it is ok if it exists!" I instead say "He is a rapist and should stop raping."

 

Does this make it more clear?

[STer]

Now that you've changed the focus of the question, from peaceful government, to Bob the Imaginary Individual... Yes, a person can theoretically restrain force... While operating in a system, government, which is in its nature, force. In working for that system however, he is violating his own morality, and the NAP, for the purpose of surviving in a system.  A system in which, the alternative, is another more forceful man being hired.

 

He is violating the NAP.... but he can restrain force... as much as possible, in the horrifying situation he finds himself in. The same way people with children and a substantive income violate the NAP when they pay taxes... but they're also perfectly good people dealing with the situation they were born in to. 

 

In essence, at the individual level, yes you're right... but it's still a tragedy.

 

I changed the focus almost at the very beginning of the thread and said that I wished I could change the title of it. This wasn't some abrupt shift in recent posts.

 

Interesting that again, even though someone can finally answer the question with a yes, it is seemingly imperative to combine it with an anti-government commentary, despite me specifically asking to stay focused on the individual and not government as a whole.

 

For a bunch of individualists, y'all sure are hard to keep focused on the individual.

I may have, but I would like to correct what I said to make the words match my thoughts.

 

If someone rapes a girl for 10 minutes and the later he rapes her for 5 minutes, I don't say "Oh, look! He is showing so much restraint and this is so good that there is less rape so now rapist is good it is ok if it exists!" I instead say "He is a rapist and should stop raping."

 

Does this make it more clear?

 

Yes, but you've also been extremely selective in your choice of example. There are countless types of examples of restraint of power, but you go out of your way to choose one - and only one - that you can make out to sound absurd while carefully not mentioning the others. On top of that, to be quite honest, I bet cutting that event from 10 minutes to 5 minutes would be very welcomed by the victim, whose view is what really matters.

 

As for "it is ok if it exists" I'm not even sure what that's in response to. All I asked is "Can Bob restrain his exercise of power?" I didn't ask "Are you happy that Bob's government job exists?" In fact, I went out of my way to make clear that was not what I was asking. But it seems people are very anxious to answer a question I went out of my way not to ask, which I find really confusing.

[Wesley]

As for "it is ok if it exists" I'm not even sure what that's in response to. All I asked if "Can Bob restrain his exercise of power?" I didn't ask "Are you happy that Bob's government job exists?" In fact, I went out of my way to make clear that was not what I was asking. But it seems people are very anxious to answer a question I went out of my way not to ask, which I find really confusing.

Yes, but you've also been extremely selective in your choice of example. There are countless types of examples of restraint of power, but you go out of your way to choose one - and only one - that you can make out to sound absurd while carefully not mentioning the others. On top of that, to be quite honest, I bet cutting that event from 10 minutes to 5 minutes would be very welcomed by the victim, whose view is what really matters.

The answer would be yes. However, never to the point of force not existing. This would mean he no longer had the job.

[LifeIsBrief]

I focused on the individual just fine... "He is violating the NAP".  To make it a bit more clear... He should stop.

[STer]

The answer would be yes. However, never to the point of force not existing. This would mean he no longer had the job.

 

Fair enough.

I focused on the individual just fine... "He is violating the NAP".  To make it a bit more clear... He should stop.

 

My question was not "Is he violating the NAP?" so why is it relevant to say that? Why is there a seeming compulsion to answer questions I'm explicitly not asking? This is becoming more interesting to me than the original question.

[Mike Fleming]

I said a government would not violate the NAP if it only served those who support it and let others opt out. How would it fund itself? From those who support it.

 

"Governments as we know them" is not relevant here. As I've pointed out repeatedly, if "as we know them" counts there, then anarchists will have to stop saying we can have no government because that is not how societies work "as we know them." This is a discussion of what could be, not what is "as we know it" now.

 

Beyond this I'm going to say this is a distraction. The question of whether a government as a whole could be non-abusive is for a separate thread and not relevant to this one. Since this is an anarchist forum where people have strong anti-government feelings, it seems like people will sometimes take any topic and use it as an inlet to just start giving anti-government commentary. But, this thread is not about whether government as an entire entity is good or bad.

 

It is about an individual, Bob, and his dual roles as parent and government worker, and whether he can show restraint in both or only in one. (See the post right above yours where I talk about Bob.)

 

Bob's government job is paid for with tax money which is taken by force.  Simple.  It doesn't matter that Bob isn't doing it himself.  Money is being stolen by someone and ends up in Bob's pocket.  Clear violation of the NAP.

 

If you are redefining Government then tell me what you are redefining it to.  It can't be control over a geographical area because people may consent or they may not.  If they don't we are back to violating the NAP.

 

An example of a voluntary type of government that I can think of would be for a group of people to buy a few hectares and then have their own little community where they all agreed to follow a leader or council.  Which is fine.  I can imagine a certain percentage of people wanting this.  

 

Saying that you are in control of an area that encompasses millions of people and their property whether they want it or not?  Not OK.  Violation of the NAP.

 

You can't have governments as they currently exist.  It seems that you want to get to a situation where the current governments can still exist, maybe reduced or something like that, but you can't.   They violate human rights.  It's really simple.

[LifeIsBrief]

My question was not "Is he violating the NAP?" so why is it relevant to say that? Why is there a seeming compulsion to answer questions I'm explicitly not asking? This is becoming more interesting to me than the original question.

 

In the words of Stefan "Freedom is not the goal, morality is the goal".  It's not a political philosophy, it's a moral philosophy.  It's not Anti-statism, in the same way it's not Anti Hobbitism... The state does not exist.  There is only Bob, with his individual moral choices to make.  The state is forcing Bob to sacrifice his morality, and forcing others to sacrifice to Bob, thus he cannot claim to be peaceful or moral. He can claim to be "restraining his use of force", but he would restrain it more, by working at a diner, and be more peaceful and moral too.

[JSDev]

It seems like all that it would take for a government not to violate NAP is that it exist to serve those who want it and those who don't want it be able to opt out. If a system worked that way, I'd say it could still be called a government. So I don't think violating the NAP is inherent in the word government. The NAP violations come when a government goes beyond serving those who support it to refusing to let those who don't opt out. You may be right that no examples of such a government exist today. But as I pointed out, that's not any more relevant than anarchists think it is when someone says there is no example of a large-scale working anarchist society today either. Not existing currently does not mean impossible.

 

 

This discussion is veering into fantasy land now.

 

@STer, you're missing the fundamental nature of government. The moment you create an "opt-out" government is the moment it's no longer government. If it's voluntary then it's free market, and now you're looking at something that looks more like an insurance program. You can't square that circle. 

 

By postulating a different kind of government to support your argument, a government that can't logically exist, you're just moving the goal post.

[Flake]

This discussion is veering into fantasy land now.

 

@STer, you're missing the fundamental nature of government. The moment you create an "opt-out" government is the moment it's no longer government. If it's voluntary then it's free market, and now you're looking at something that looks more like an insurance program. You can't square that circle. 

 

By postulating a different kind of government to support your argument, a government that can't logically exist, you're just moving the goal post.

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

[STer]

Bob's government job is paid for with tax money which is taken by force.  Simple.  It doesn't matter that Bob isn't doing it himself.  Money is being stolen by someone and ends up in Bob's pocket.  Clear violation of the NAP.

 

If you are redefining Government then tell me what you are redefining it to.  It can't be control over a geographical area because people may consent or they may not.  If they don't we are back to violating the NAP.

 

An example of a voluntary type of government that I can think of would be for a group of people to buy a few hectares and then have their own little community where they all agreed to follow a leader or council.  Which is fine.  I can imagine a certain percentage of people wanting this.  

 

Saying that you are in control of an area that encompasses millions of people and their property whether they want it or not?  Not OK.  Violation of the NAP.

 

You can't have governments as they currently exist.  It seems that you want to get to a situation where the current governments can still exist, maybe reduced or something like that, but you can't.   They violate human rights.  It's really simple.

 

So I just posted:

 

"My question was not "Is he violating the NAP?" so why is it relevant to say that? Why is there a seeming compulsion to answer questions I'm explicitly not asking? This is becoming more interesting to me than the original question."

 

And your response is:

 

"Bob's government job is paid for with tax money which is taken by force.  Simple.  It doesn't matter that Bob isn't doing it himself.  Money is being stolen by someone and ends up in Bob's pocket.  Clear violation of the NAP."

 

So you answered the exact thing I had just said was not what I'm asking.

 

I also said:

 

"Beyond this I'm going to say this is a distraction. The question of whether a government as a whole could be non-abusive is for a separate thread and not relevant to this one."

 

Then you spend the rest of your response addressing that part that I just said is a distraction and for a separate thread.

 

It makes me wonder if you're even reading my responses before responding back?

In the words of Stefan "Freedom is not the goal, morality is the goal".  It's not a political philosophy, it's a moral philosophy.  It's not Anti-statism, in the same way it's not Anti Hobbitism... The state does not exist.  There is only Bob, with his individual moral choices to make.  The state is forcing Bob to sacrifice his morality, and forcing others to sacrifice to Bob, thus he cannot claim to be peaceful or moral. He can claim to be "restraining his use of force", but he would restrain it more, by working at a diner, and be more peaceful and moral too.

 

>>"He can claim to be "restraining his use of force", but he would restrain it more, by working at a diner, and be more peaceful and moral too."

 

That sentence at least addresses my question, though it is misleading because that wouldn't be restraining his power as a government worker, since he wouldn't have it anymore. That would be abdicating the power, not restraining it within his role as government worker, which was my question. But at least that was on topic to what I'm asking. Again, I don't understand why there are all these other sentences responding to things not only not asked, but that I've repeatedly said "I'm not asking that."

 

I think I made quite clear that I'm not asking "Is Bob totally peaceful?" or "Is everything Bob is doing moral?" yet again there seems to be a compulsion to answer those questions even after I point out that I'm not asking them - and even after I've specifically asked why there is this compulsion in the first place. What is going on with that? Why the need over and over to spend one sentence answering my question and then four times as many answering something I keep saying I'm not asking?

This discussion is veering into fantasy land now.

 

@STer, you're missing the fundamental nature of government. The moment you create an "opt-out" government is the moment it's no longer government. If it's voluntary then it's free market, and now you're looking at something that looks more like an insurance program. You can't square that circle. 

 

By postulating a different kind of government to support your argument, a government that can't logically exist, you're just moving the goal post.

 

Yet another response that only responds to the part I have repeatedly said is both a distraction and not relevant to my question. Am I the only one that finds this a strange pattern? I have multiple times been as specific as to say "This is what I'm asking, and this is what I'm not asking." Yet people almost 95% of the time keep answering the thing I said I'm not asking about and most have not even addressed the thing I am asking about. I'm starting to find this a fascinating phenomenon and I'm quite curious what is behind it. It gets even more confusing each time I point out that it's happening and, in response to that, it just happens again.

 

My question was "Can Bob, in his role as government worker, restrain his exercise of power?" Not "Is everything Bob does great?" Not "Is Bob totally peaceful?" Not "Hey guys, is government a good thing or bad thing?" Yet people continue to answer these questions in addition to answering the one I asked, if they even answer the one I actually asked at all.

 

At least one or two people have finally given some answer directly to what I asked, though still with all these other answers added on for some reason.

[LifeIsBrief]

I tried to answer the question you asked, about why we keep bringing up the NAP... It seemed to be bothering you.  The reason we keep bringing it up, is that we care about Bob, and his chosen moral philosophy.  You're asking if Bob can be a murderer who restrains himself... The moral goal of libertarians, is to get people to stop murdering.  Thus, your question is horrifying. Whether he can personally "restrain force" at his inherently violent job... has no bearing on his morality or peace.

 

You're saying, "Would you rather be a cruel, horrible human being? Or, a slightly less cruel, horrible human being?"... Well those aren't my, or Bobs only options.

[STer]

The goal of people who wish to improve children's experience is to stop abuse. Yet if I ask "Can an abusive parent learn to restrain themselves and become less abusive?" I don't think anyone would think that's a horrifying question or somehow saying abuse is ok unless they are going out of their way to twist things. I think it's a crucial question. Unless you live in a fantasy world where people change instantly from one extreme to the other, people who are currently doing terrible things will have to restrain themselves and every bit of improvement is important.

 

So if the system is as it is and you find it unacceptable, but Bob starts to use his power in a less abusive way, and you don't consider that something to celebrate, but something horrifying, I really don't know how you expect change to happen.

 

I do think your response helps me understand why you keep throwing in these tangents though. It's almost like you're saying "Yes he can restrain himself, but gradualism is meaningless to me, only complete and total change all at once is acceptable."

 

That topic is relevant here. Bob's restraint is an example of gradual change, a step in the right direction. But you seem eager to shoot down any idea of there being value in such gradual steps. You seem to say that unless Bob and anyone in his position immediately resigns his job to go work at the supermarket, any steps toward restraint are worthless.

[LifeIsBrief]

Parenting is something capable of being peaceful, and moral.  If a government was to become peaceful, and moral, it would be called charity.  By choosing to work for the government, Bob has made a horrifically immoral choice, that actually affects his ability to even claim to be a decent parent.  How can you raise children peacefully, while stealing your income from a community?

 

Bob cannot lead by example, and be a peaceful parent, while working for a system which murders people.  He can only be the slightly lesser of many evils.  He can only "not hit his children", and "restrain force at work".  It's a question of moral relativism, versus objective morality.  If there is an objective moral standard, then Bob loses his ability to be a peaceful parent, by providing a terrible example for his children, working for a system which is violent and abusive. 

[STer]

Parenting is something capable of being peaceful, and moral.  If a government was to become peaceful, and moral, it would be called charity.  By choosing to work for the government, Bob has made a horrifically immoral choice, that actually affects his ability to even claim to be a decent parent.  How can you raise children peacefully, while stealing your income from a community?

 

Bob cannot lead by example, and be a peaceful parent, while working for a system which murders people.  He can only be the slightly lesser of many evils.  He can only "not hit his children", and "restrain force at work".  It's a question of moral relativism, versus objective morality.  If there is an objective moral standard, then Bob loses his ability to be a peaceful parent, by providing a terrible example for his children, working for a system which is violent and abusive. 

 

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.

[LifeIsBrief]

This is not anti-government commentary...  It's about how working for the government directly undermines his ability to be a role model for his child, call himself peaceful, or consider himself moral.  This is an objective fact, not commentary.  He is setting a violent example for his children, which will harm them, objectively.  You're acting as though Bobs morals are situation dependent, rather than objective.  This is the disagreement.  No, the fact there is a system, does not make being a less abusive member of a destructive system tolerable.  He is hurting his children, by working for the government.

[STer]

This is not anti-government commentary...  It's about how working for the government directly undermines his ability to be a role model for his child, call himself peaceful, or consider himself moral.  This is an objective fact, not commentary.  He is setting a violent example for his children, which will harm them, objectively.  You're acting as though Bobs morals are situation dependent, rather than objective.  This is the disagreement.  No, the fact there is a system, does not make being a less abusive member of a destructive system tolerable.  He is hurting his children, by working for the government.

 

Well I've now repeated ad nauseam that I never asked if he is "peaceful" or "moral" in an absolute way, only if he can make a step in the right direction. And, you just ignored completely, twice in a row, the issue of gradualism vs. instant absolute change, even after I explicitly tried to bring your attention back to it. So I think I'm done responding to you. You're talking to yourself and not addressing the things I say in my responses to you. It's like talking to a monologue.

 

If you decide you'd like to discuss the gradualism vs. instant absolute change and address that head on, I'd be interested. But it seems like you prefer to keep talking about things I've never mentioned or raised. Nothing I say seems to get you on topic.