how would you respond to this?

[powder]

having a political/philosophical debate on a non philosophical forum and most of the responses are the usual knee jerk reactionary stuff.  then there are these types:

 

While I believe I understand your thesis, and agree and sympathize with much of it, it is completely impractical in the real world. It's too bad, but the human race is really not capable of self government on so many levels. 

Let's use one recent situation as a test case. Here in London a couple have been charged with locking a 10 year old child in a bedroom for 2 years while his "parents" and I use the term very loosely, were "working out of the country". The authorities found out and removed the child from the household and he is now doing well.

How would this have been handled in your utopia? Please address this with the understanding that society is made up of people of all kinds, not some mythical race of godlike intelligent beings with a clear moral compass.

 

here is another one:  

 

I don't think it's a question of ethics at all. If you wish to be part of a society, collective, co-op, club or group of any kind, it requires a certain amount of give and take and rules that allow, and protect your rights and freedoms. It follows that there must be someone charged with administering that whole enchilada - be it one person, a board of governors ............... or a government. In a "free" society these administrators get voted in or out.

 

and this one:  

 

I'm fond of reminding people that, although being a social animal and having community implies compromise, there are limits to human co-operation. It would be a beautiful John Lennon-esque world if coercion was completely unnecessary, and compromise easily reached...but we always run into those limits. And because humans are the way they are, laws and rules end up being the deciders for us. That is, if WE won't co-operate, the law substitutes for the reasoning we fail to undertake.

Why ARE people "that way"? A couple of reasons, I suspect. Certainly no complete list, but one factor is that humans, unlike many simpler species, do not always synchronize their emotions. What you feel about something at this moment is not necessarily what I feel. And our feelings shape our evaluation of data, and the judgments we reach, such that, even though we may be presented with the same information at any given moment, we weight that information differently because of emotion/feelings, and arrive at different conclusions as a result.

A second reason would appear to be that values, rights, or whatever you want to call that which finds itself expressed in laws (but is not absolutely equivalent to laws) are abstract. Humans have a hard time translating those deep-seated abstract priorities/values/beliefs/rights into concrete and operational realities. We seem to spend much of our lives engaged in one or more versions of the phrase "Know what I'm saying?", in that we can't readily articulate the principles our actions are derived from. The biblical metaphor used was that Moses could not see the face of God, only the back of God's head, whilst up on the mountain producing the commandment tablets. Our most profound, and perhaps universal, beliefs are ones we are just unable to lay out on the table like an exploded Ikea assembly diagram. They exist in a sort of cloud for us. And because of that, we articulate them differently from each other and misconstrue the articulation for the underlying principle.

One of the basic premises of dispute resolution is to identify common goals and values, because vicious adversaries often have the same over-arching goals and values, and where they differ is in the implementation. To beat the metaphor to death with a stick, they're both looking at the back of the head of the same God, but from different angles, and disagreeing on what it is.

 

I would like to see how you folks would respond to these.  thanks

[Alan C.]

...the human race is really not capable of self government on so many levels.

 

If humans are incapable of self-government then how can they govern others?

[shirgall]

it is completely impractical in the real world

 

To use a common Stef counter-argument, so was eliminating slavery.

 

To not eliminate what is wrong because it would be difficult is cowardice.

[dsayers]

I would like to see how you folks would respond to these.  thanks

 

I usually look for inconsistencies and contradictions. All three posts speak as if humans cannot be trusted and must be controlled, but skip right over that what they trust/advocate is human. If somebody cannot be trusted, they're the last person you want to give an army, nukes, and "legitimate authority" to.

 

 

 

Why ARE people "that way"? A couple of reasons, I suspect.

 

This guy went on to talk as if 2+2=4 cannot be true because people value things differently. For example, I value scientific research over blind ponitification. He's putting forth the objective claim that objective claims cannot be made. He's doing this by pretending to be speaking the truth while making no effort to determine what the truth is. The science is in. We have a large understanding of why people are "that way" and the best part of it is that it's not the default. There's no reason for him to suspect, but all the reason in the world to actually follow his pretend curiosity since it's tantamount to the salvation of the human race.

 

I don't know that you could debate these people productively. There's a reason why these people need for their ideas to be correct even if logic, reason, and evidence contradicts them. The last guy was kind enough to reveal that his religion is the template he uses for determining that ruling over people is righteous. What they're all not telling you is that their parents controlled them and didn't treat them like individuals, help them to critically think, or empower them to be able to make rational decisions on their own. To accept that humans are not fundamentally different from one another would mean that everybody in their lives they looked up to or trusted lied to them to be able to subjugate them. But this wouldn't be the end of the story they see it as since the people that did this to them had it done to them also. They could use that discomfort as motivation to help break the cycle in their own lives by not continuing to support coercion as the solution to problems.

[tasmlab]

It only took the government two years to find the boy locked in the room.  Interesting that this is held up as a case of good government.

[square4]

The authorities found out and removed the child from the household and he is now doing well.

How would this have been handled in your utopia?

 

It is currently not handled well at all. You might want to checkout this episode of Anarchast with a CPS whistle blower. For the UK situation, this article says that the government-provided so-called "child protection" in UK is an international scandal, because children are snatched away for nonsensical reasons.

 

I don't think it's a question of ethics at all. If you wish to be part of a society, collective, co-op, club or group of any kind, it requires a certain amount of give and take and rules that allow, and protect your rights and freedoms. It follows that there must be someone charged with administering that whole enchilada - be it one person, a board of governors ............... or a government. In a "free" society these administrators get voted in or out.

 

Some groups are formed spontaneously, when living in the same area. Other groups can be formed through a voluntary contract or agreement between the participating individuals. The rules of interaction are defined by these contracts and by ethics. This is sufficient; we do not need a central authority. A contract is not voted on democratically, but it is agreed on unanimously by all participating parties, otherwise it is invalid.

 

I'm fond of reminding people that, although being a social animal and having community implies compromise, there are limits to human co-operation. It would be a beautiful John Lennon-esque world if coercion was completely unnecessary, and compromise easily reached...but we always run into those limits.

 

Why do we need a compromise? Voluntary interactions are perceived to be beneficial or preferable by the parties involved. If a compromise is needed by both parties, it means they started the negotiations with too many supposed rights, that cannot be satisfied at the same time in the real world.

[powder]

this one is a little more articulate and thougthful, what say thee?

 

 

I won't enter a debate about what constitutes universal ethics, but I'll accept that you're trying to correlate the breach of these two given ideals by government and their agencies with the act of voting being tacit complicity in these acts. I see how you are essentially trying to say that government, in all forms, by virtue of the fact that they tax (taking property) and punish (under the law) and go to war(murder, maim, kill) are always breaching these 2 ideals. My point, which you're not seeing, is that gov't is actually reducing the occurrence of each of these, so having and participating in democratic gov't is the "morally superior" way of being. 

In addition, regarding #2, taxation is, by definition, NOT STEALING. It is pooling public money for public good, i.e., we are paying ourselves. The gov't is simply administrating these public funds. People grumble about paying, bitch about how the gov't spends, but we do willingly (most of us anyway) pay our tax. The threat of asset seizure or prison exists for the same reason that the criminal code has laws against murder - to try to ensure socially cooperative behaviour. IMHO, pro-social behaviour IS moral behaviour, a number of moral philosophers would agree with this ultra simple definition of morality.

As far as initiating violence (#1), the law is supposedly 100% reactive, i.e, acting in self-defense, but on behalf of the general population. Also, our country is not initiating conflicts or invading other countries. Hence, we have no moral quandary here. Our military actions are in defense of our interests, but reactionary (which you say is OK).

Once again, because democracy is a) incapable of breaches of morality, as I've explained in this post and b) gov't prevents people from acting primarily in self interest (as I've explained in previous posts), not voting is the immoral act because lack of participation in democracy is a rejection thereof which is tacit approval of antisocial acts.

[nathanm]

"How would this be handled in your utopia?"

 

Designed to make the anarchist look like the person who has fantastical ideas.  Maybe this needs to be turned around on them.  Give an example on any current injustice perpetrated by police on innocent people and ask the statist:

 

"WHY is this handled this way in YOUR utopia?"

 

The anarchy-denier is always in the unenviable position of defending things as they are.  If you are in favor of government guess what, you won.  You have exactly what you argue for.  We all are living within YOUR system.  Now YOU defend your 'utopian system' where all of these horrible things happen which are caused by government agents.

[TheMatrixHasMe]

having a political/philosophical debate on a non philosophical forum and most of the responses are the usual knee jerk reactionary stuff.  then there are these types:

 

While I believe I understand your thesis, and agree and sympathize with much of it, it is completely impractical in the real world. It's too bad, but the human race is really not capable of self government on so many levels. 

 

Let's use one recent situation as a test case. Here in London a couple have been charged with locking a 10 year old child in a bedroom for 2 years while his "parents" and I use the term very loosely, were "working out of the country". The authorities found out and removed the child from the household and he is now doing well.

 

How would this have been handled in your utopia? Please address this with the understanding that society is made up of people of all kinds, not some mythical race of godlike intelligent beings with a clear moral compass.

 

here is another one:  

 

I don't think it's a question of ethics at all. If you wish to be part of a society, collective, co-op, club or group of any kind, it requires a certain amount of give and take and rules that allow, and protect your rights and freedoms. It follows that there must be someone charged with administering that whole enchilada - be it one person, a board of governors ............... or a government. In a "free" society these administrators get voted in or out.

 

and this one:  

 

I'm fond of reminding people that, although being a social animal and having community implies compromise, there are limits to human co-operation. It would be a beautiful John Lennon-esque world if coercion was completely unnecessary, and compromise easily reached...but we always run into those limits. And because humans are the way they are, laws and rules end up being the deciders for us. That is, if WE won't co-operate, the law substitutes for the reasoning we fail to undertake.

Why ARE people "that way"? A couple of reasons, I suspect. Certainly no complete list, but one factor is that humans, unlike many simpler species, do not always synchronize their emotions. What you feel about something at this moment is not necessarily what I feel. And our feelings shape our evaluation of data, and the judgments we reach, such that, even though we may be presented with the same information at any given moment, we weight that information differently because of emotion/feelings, and arrive at different conclusions as a result.

 

A second reason would appear to be that values, rights, or whatever you want to call that which finds itself expressed in laws (but is not absolutely equivalent to laws) are abstract. Humans have a hard time translating those deep-seated abstract priorities/values/beliefs/rights into concrete and operational realities. We seem to spend much of our lives engaged in one or more versions of the phrase "Know what I'm saying?", in that we can't readily articulate the principles our actions are derived from. The biblical metaphor used was that Moses could not see the face of God, only the back of God's head, whilst up on the mountain producing the commandment tablets. Our most profound, and perhaps universal, beliefs are ones we are just unable to lay out on the table like an exploded Ikea assembly diagram. They exist in a sort of cloud for us. And because of that, we articulate them differently from each other and misconstrue the articulation for the underlying principle.

 

One of the basic premises of dispute resolution is to identify common goals and values, because vicious adversaries often have the same over-arching goals and values, and where they differ is in the implementation. To beat the metaphor to death with a stick, they're both looking at the back of the head of the same God, but from different angles, and disagreeing on what it is.

 

I would like to see how you folks would respond to these.  thanks

 

 

I would be curious to hear about what happened in your childhood that brought you back to the lion's cage. I would then ask what happened in your childhood that has you sticking your arm back inside the lion's cage of your family of origin, and why in the world you might be expecting a different response.

 

I would also ask why you have any interest in responding to those commenting when you only have one arm left with which to type.

[powder]

"How would this be handled in your utopia?"

 

Designed to make the anarchist look like the person who has fantastical ideas.  Maybe this needs to be turned around on them.  Give an example on any current injustice perpetrated by police on innocent people and ask the statist:

 

"WHY is this handled this way in YOUR utopia?"

 

The anarchy-denier is always in the unenviable position of defending things as they are.  If you are in favor of government guess what, you won.  You have exactly what you argue for.  We all are living within YOUR system.  Now YOU defend your 'utopian system' where all of these horrible things happen which are caused by government agents.

yeah, although I haven't used this approach in this particular debate, the answer to that was given - things would be worse without the state, esp a democratic one.  

I would be curious to hear about what happened in your childhood that brought you back to the lion's cage. I would then ask what happened in your childhood that has you sticking your arm back inside the lion's cage of your family of origin, and why in the world you might be expecting a different response.

 

I would also ask why you have any interest in responding to those commenting when you only have one arm left with which to type.

When I first started reading this post I thought you were suggesting this as a possible response to the the guys post - when I realized that you were addressing me I was taken aback, not in a bad way really.  It was just unexpected - and the analogy is clever enough that I got a kick out of it.  

 

are you really curious or is this a rhetorical question to make me question?  

 

certainly had manipulative and controlling parents - my dad was a bully as well.  I am competitive and like to debate, that is related to my upbringing for sure.  I find these kinds of debates help me develop my cognitive skills. 

 

Stef had a similar family environment to me.  why do you think he spends so much time debating and discussing freedom?  what do you think is going on and how do you see this situation and what a healthy perspective would look like?  

[tasmlab]

Perhaps personalize the debate with the "against me" approach?

[square4]

Also, our country is not initiating conflicts or invading other countries. Hence, we have no moral quandary here.

To be consistent with his system of morality, he would have to say that the morality of states would depend on them participating and obeying world government that is elected democratically. But instead, he applies a sort of NAP between states. This seems inconsistent.

 

Once again, because democracy is a) incapable of breaches of morality

That's quite a strong statement, and it is false. Suppose the majority of people are sadist, or members of the nazi party? Is not paying taxes for extermination camps unsocial behavior? Of course not. Democracy fails as a moral principle. The majority is probably stronger than the others, so democracy is similar to might = right. On which level do you apply democracy? World, federal, state, county, town, household, individual? It cannot be applied at different levels at the same time, without creating a contradiction, so there is inconsistency. How do borders between states get decided? It cannot be that based on the outcome of a violent border conflict, it gets decided whether or not it is moral to obey laws of this government instead of another government. What is called a democracy is often an oligarchy. Why indirect instead of direct democracy? The usual arguments against democracy are applicable.

[dsayers]

this one is a little more articulate and thougthful, what say thee?

 

 

I won't enter a debate about what constitutes universal ethics, but I'll accept that you're trying to correlate the breach of these two given ideals by government and their agencies with the act of voting being tacit complicity in these acts. I see how you are essentially trying to say that government, in all forms, by virtue of the fact that they tax (taking property) and punish (under the law) and go to war(murder, maim, kill) are always breaching these 2 ideals. My point, which you're not seeing, is that gov't is actually reducing the occurrence of each of these, so having and participating in democratic gov't is the "morally superior" way of being. 

 

Word salad, dressing on the side. The initiation of the use of force is either immoral or it is not.

 

How on earth is he arriving at the conclusion that government is reducing the occurrence of this? What individuals would be detonating nukes, ordering drone strikes, unleashing depleted uranium shells were it not for the governments stopping them? Is he not aware of the statistics for democide vs non-State initiated murder? He's repeating the narrative, disregarding empirical evidence, and accusing you of disregarding something. If you feel this person is worth your time, I'd start by asking him if truth is more valuable than falsehood and go from there. 

[TheMatrixHasMe]

yeah, although I haven't used this approach in this particular debate, the answer to that was given - things would be worse without the state, esp a democratic one. When I first started reading this post I thought you were suggesting this as a possible response to the the guys post - when I realized that you were addressing me I was taken aback, not in a bad way really. It was just unexpected - and the analogy is clever enough that I got a kick out of it. are you really curious or is this a rhetorical question to make me question? certainly had manipulative and controlling parents - my dad was a bully as well. I am competitive and like to debate, that is related to my upbringing for sure. I find these kinds of debates help me develop my cognitive skills. Stef had a similar family environment to me. why do you think he spends so much time debating and discussing freedom? what do you think is going on and how do you see this situation and what a healthy perspective would look like?

That's a nice narrative, but I'm here to let you know that there is a pretty good chance that you are not developing your cognitive skills by slumming with ass clowns in other various forums who will never change their minds. In other words, I've wasted much of my own life attempting to do the same. I'm sure that you're far more intelligent and better debater than I could ever hope to be—but is that worth blowing your time on?

[powder]

That's a nice narrative, but I'm here to let you know that there is a pretty good chance that you are not developing your cognitive skills by slumming with ass clowns in other various forums who will never change their minds. In other words, I've wasted much of my own life attempting to do the same. I'm sure that you're far more intelligent and better debater than I could ever hope to be—but is that worth blowing your time on?

good points Steve, I don't know the answer to that but I will consider it.  

[powder]

how about this one:  

 

but as far as the problem of electing people who are ruled by self interest, what choice is there? Can you realistically imagine life without law? It would be the Wild West without sherrifs and Marshall's. Very quickly people would band together to form a town or collective or something to protect the people who make against the strong who take. As soon as we start working together people need a leader. The leader, in my fictitious scenario, as well as our real life, must share at least some ideals/values/ desires/interests as the people he or she leads, right? Otherwise, who would follow?

On the flip side is the roving gangs of thugs led by the strongest thug. His leadership is based on personal strength and the ability to plan and execute raids or hunts which net the group food and resources so they continue to survive. Essentially we become like packs of wolves.

neither scenario seems better to me than what we have now.

So, yes, democracy has it's flaws, but it is the best system we've come up with so far.

To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.
Louis L'Amour


It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill

 

and this one:  

 

But how could any type of punishment be administered? It's not as though other people could actually vote on it. If someone killed someone how would they be punished? The deed is done, self protection or defense of a third party would no longer apply. We would have no governing body or collective around to administer any kind or retribution or justice. What am I missing?

 

to which another guy responded with:

 

Exactly. For that matter, who determines whether someone is acting in self defence or in defence of a third party?

If anarchy is the only moral system of governance, the very act of determining whether moral principles are violated is immoral. That's why the whole notion is absurd.

[square4]

Can you realistically imagine life without law? It would be the Wild West without sherrifs and Marshall's.

In AnCap, there could be multiple competing private police agencies. People could voluntary decide to purchase a coverage with one these agencies. If an agency abuses its power, people could cancel their subscription and stop paying for it. Try that in the current system.

 

As soon as we start working together people need a leader.

We do not need a central leadership to work together. Lets look at how the production of even a simple product is coordinated on the free market. Usually there are many different companies involved. Through the price system, resources and people are directed to the most effective and valued activities. For example, suppose people want to buy wooden pencils, this indirectly creates a price incentive for people to supply lumber to the factory where the pencils are produced. The process is coordinated in a decentralized way, without coercion. On the other hand, leadership can be very useful, and it is not forbidden in anarchy, provided it is non-coercive.